Japanese Death Star Artillery

[JeffroK]

To kill any flavoured Artillery Deathstar, Have a look at the editor and maybe tweak back the artillery effect ratings.

[Miller]

Dan is pretty hacked off with good reason. I will restrict the number of ART units per hex from now on. Not sure what a reasonable number is.......3 or 4 perhaps? Opinions?

[Canoerebel]

This is so fine a distinction that it may be impossible for people to comprehend, but I want to state for the record that while I am chapped about the use of Japanese artillery in our game, my frustration isn't directed at Miller.  It is directed at some mythical Japanese commander.  Miller is true-blue - a faithful opponent and a good guy.

[Feltan]

ORIGINAL: Miller

Dan is pretty hacked off with good reason. I will restrict the number of ART units per hex from now on. Not sure what a reasonable number is.......3 or 4 perhaps? Opinions?

For a house rule, I still suggest on arty reg per division or division equivalent (i.e., three regiments). This solution doesn't address the logistics issue, but provides some limitation based (loosely) on actual doctrinal deployment.

Regards,
Feltan

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Miller

Dan is pretty hacked off with good reason. I will restrict the number of ART units per hex from now on. Not sure what a reasonable number is.......3 or 4 perhaps? Opinions?

I think some posters in this thread suggested 1 unit per division infantry equivalent (1 per 3 regiments). Other posters have suggested trying to mimic the effect of short supply by limiting bombardment to 2 turns or so and then discontinuing for a time.

[erstad]

ORIGINAL: Miller

Dan is pretty hacked off with good reason. I will restrict the number of ART units per hex from now on. Not sure what a reasonable number is.......3 or 4 perhaps? Opinions?

I don't feel comfortable offering advice on what the "right" answer is. Too many variables, everyone's mileage will vary.

However, I'll mention the way I approached it as a JFB (not right at first, but more recently as it's become clear the arty is either too powerful or too easily made available) is that I don't bombard every turn. If I'm nuking the opposition, I'll hold off for a turn or two or three before bombarding again. I'm also using more deliberate attacks (which still use the arty but give me some lumps too)where I might otherwise sit and bombard.

Bottom line is that an alternate to limiting number of units is to limit the frequency of use. Not arguing that one is necessarily better than the other.

[WITPPL]

I do not have enough life time to be as active on this board as most of You fellows but If I can add my 2c (it comes from 20 years of being a geek) - Its not the brightest idea Ive read. I think that I can call it completely a historical.

Let’s summarize:

Art should inflict much less casualties in the open than in a city.
Heavy Art >150mm should take much more time to deploy, redeploy

Art in a game inflicts less looses than ww1 barrages. Less than Art used heavily vs Cities (ie Warsaw 1944) during ww2.

Pretty much that’s it.
Limiting something that kills right in a war game does not look cool.

BTW: Who are complaining? Allies? Jeez...
IIRC Nobody hit 1943 to see what will happened
Nobody has conquered CHINA yet

but they are crying already

[Ketza]

1 regiment/battalion per three regiments seems fair.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: WITPPL

I do not have enough life time to be as active on this board as most of You fellows but If I can add my 2c (it comes from 20 years of being a geek) - Its not the brightest idea Ive read. I think that I can call it completely a historical.

Let’s summarize:

Art should inflict much less casualties in the open than in a city.
Heavy Art >150mm should take much more time to deploy, redeploy

Art in a game inflicts less looses than ww1 barrages. Less than Art used heavily vs Cities (ie Warsaw 1944) during ww2.

Pretty much that’s it.
Limiting something that kills right in a war game does not look cool.

BTW: Who are complaining? Allies? Jeez...
IIRC Nobody hit 1943 to see what will happened
Nobody has conquered CHINA yet

but they are crying already

1 - There is a supply issue, in that supplies used are unrealistically low.

2 - There is a problem with fortifications, in that they don't apply against artillery.

Those two things are major (especially the forts issue). Aside from them, I'm not sure that there are additional issues with artillery.

Regarding Manchuria, it is probably unrealistic to pull out all the arty or even a great amount of it as it was there to balance the Soviets. So I probably wouldn't do it, but it's up to the players in a PBEM to decide that on their own.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

1 - There is a supply issue, in that supplies used are unrealistically low.

Aye, this will probably get changed one day.

2 - There is a problem with fortifications, in that they don't apply against artillery.

Who told you this?

Those two things are major (especially the forts issue). Aside from them, I'm not sure that there are additional issues with artillery.

Regarding Manchuria, it is probably unrealistic to pull out all the arty or even a great amount of it as it was there to balance the Soviets. So I probably wouldn't do it, but it's up to the players in a PBEM to decide that on their own.

Yup, house rules can handle artillery limits on pull out of Manchuria just as they handle general troop pull out from Manchuria.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: WITPPL
Art should inflict much less casualties in the open than in a city.

My goodness. What artillery units have you served in??? You seem to have gotten this exactly backwards!!!
[:)]

[medicff]

ORIGINAL: witpqs


1 - There is a supply issue, in that supplies used are unrealistically low.

2 - There is a problem with fortifications, in that they don't apply against artillery.

Those two things are major (especially the forts issue). Aside from them, I'm not sure that there are additional issues with artillery.

Regarding Manchuria, it is probably unrealistic to pull out all the arty or even a great amount of it as it was there to balance the Soviets. So I probably wouldn't do it, but it's up to the players in a PBEM to decide that on their own.

Supply requirements should help limit using

Dont know about forts and how apply in game to artillery

Manchuria units should be perm restricted or at least combine with infantry/armor to come out as a combo so that you have to pay with PP's and more important garrison requirements to get them.

The Manchuria solution still does not resolve the issue of Singapore and Luzon falling so quickly so therefore I think that artillery should also be toned down a little on effectiveness (killing off units) unless the supply issue resolves this as well. As far as I am concerned disabling large amounts of units each turn in a hotly contested hex will quickly turn into kills as there is no way to rotate these units out or rest/undisable these squads at a comparable rate as it is currently. Esp Chinese with poor morale, leaders and supply.

Remember that all this will just be in reverse in 43-44 so it should be a non fanboy issue.

just my .02

[ckammp]

The solution is easy, and obvious:
 
Play vs. AI.
 
Playing vs. AI avoids the gamey "unbeatable artillery death star".
 
Thus, playing vs. AI is the best, most satisfying method of enjoying WitP:AE. [:)]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: witpqs

2 - There is a problem with fortifications, in that they don't apply against artillery.

Who told you this?

Earlier in this thread.

My Question:

I do wonder about the seeming lack of protective effects of fortifications on artillery. IRL being caught in the open by artillery is far more deadly, but in-game it seems as if it makes no difference being in the open or in any level of fortifications.

Nikademus' Answer:

This is SAIEW in terms of WitP. There has been some discussion on altering it, but any time you involve coding, it gets complicated. Tweaking the casualties for example seems easy. Turned out not to be so easy. I think every programmer on the team has permanent eye strain now.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: witpqs

2 - There is a problem with fortifications, in that they don't apply against artillery.

Who told you this?

Earlier in this thread.

My Question:

I do wonder about the seeming lack of protective effects of fortifications on artillery. IRL being caught in the open by artillery is far more deadly, but in-game it seems as if it makes no difference being in the open or in any level of fortifications.

Nikademus' Answer:

This is SAIEW in terms of WitP. There has been some discussion on altering it, but any time you involve coding, it gets complicated. Tweaking the casualties for example seems easy. Turned out not to be so easy. I think every programmer on the team has permanent eye strain now.

Can't figure out what the above all means.

Fortifications do affect artillery.

[stuman]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

The solution is easy, and obvious:

Play vs. AI.

Playing vs. AI avoids the gamey "unbeatable artillery death star".

Thus, playing vs. AI is the best, most satisfying method of enjoying WitP:AE. [:)]

Oh no, that is what we need in this thread, a rehash of AI v PBEM debate [;)]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel


8.  If I play the Japanese, I now know how to easily defeat China.  I just save all my Political Points until I can bring all my artillery to bear in China.  Then I methodically destroy the Chinese Army and take all (or essentially all) of the country.  Then I move those units somewhere else - Russia or India if I want to remain on the offensive; or to defensive positions if I want to make my defenses in the Pacific impregnable.  Think how tough it's going to be for the Allies to advance in the Pacific if the Japs have all those Chinese troops stationed at Luzon, Java, Okinowa, Formosa, etc.

You can move them to Russia or Burma or India but show me how you move the whole China Expedetionary Army into the Pacific... [&:]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Interesting ideas worth considering, Shark.

Another problem in China is the terribly one-sided casualties inflicted.  Here's a good example from my turn of June 13, 1942:

For the Japanese deliberate attack at Chengchow the two sides had essentially equal infantry numbers, the Japanese had seventeen artillery units, and forts had been reduced from 4 to 0 over a few weeks of attacks and artillery bombardments.  So the Chinese are about ready for defeat.  The Japanese attack comes off at 2:1, costing the Japs 1,643 casualties to 18,409 for the Chinese.[&:]

A few days ago, a large Chinese army clobbered two Japanese units attempting to besiege Nanyang. The Japanese retreated and most of the Chinese followed.  On the 13th, a fresh and victorious Chinese army attacks the defeated, disorganized, routed Japanese units a hex east of Nanyang.  This attack comes off at 37:1 and inflictes 3,768 Japanese casualties to 1,171 for the Chinese.  Huh?  The next day, a 50:1 Chinese attack inflictes 7,823 to 404.  Better, but how does a 37:1 attack for the Chinese achieve 3:1 ratio in losses while a 2:1 Japanese attack achieves 12:1 ratio of losses? 

And this is not an isolated occurrence.  This is every attack in the game to date.[:@]

this is a very bad example Canoerebel and I´m not sure you wouldn´t know it anyway. The Chinese RETREATED (level 0 forts, 2:1 odds) and if units retreat they take far more losses, as it has ever been in WITP also. Show us the odds of the three attacks before and the casualties. Bet the Chinese surely didn´t take 18.400 casualties in those attacks.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: treespider


Which is why when I get around to doing my mod a fair number of these guys will be made to be Permanently restricted. If Japan wants to take units out of manchuria let them take the Infantry and some Tanks...units which actually count towards the garrison requirements.

making them permanetly restricted sounds good but it doesn´t change the fact that you can move them overland into China, Burma or even India. This could only be restricted by a hr then. No movement out of Manchuria without having paid pps, you can´t for artillery so it would have to stay there.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: witpqs

1 - There is a supply issue, in that supplies used are unrealistically low.

Aye, this will probably get changed one day.

2 - There is a problem with fortifications, in that they don't apply against artillery.

Who told you this?

Those two things are major (especially the forts issue). Aside from them, I'm not sure that there are additional issues with artillery.

Regarding Manchuria, it is probably unrealistic to pull out all the arty or even a great amount of it as it was there to balance the Soviets. So I probably wouldn't do it, but it's up to the players in a PBEM to decide that on their own.

Yup, house rules can handle artillery limits on pull out of Manchuria just as they handle general troop pull out from Manchuria.

you don´t need to get told. Everyone that has played the game long enough knows that forts are not the help against bombardements (air, naval or artillery) like they were in real life. I don´t say they don´t help at all, but they surely don´t help nearly like they should. The effect of forts against bombardments (in AE only against artillery as naval bombardements are more or less not existing anymore) is nearly not existable.