Artillery Death Stars Post Patch Two Hot Fix

[Canoerebel]

Allied naval and air bombardments accomplished little at Iwo Jima.  I'd say the forts were roughly equivalent to a level 7 or 8 in the game?  The Japanese only began building in earnest around summer of '44.

Of course, artillery "taught" wise Japanese leaders that defenses above ground were'nt the way to go, so Lt. Gen. Kuribayashi (spelling?) did a great job designing the defenses at Iwo.  I think the Japanese commander at Peleliu had done the same thing.

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Regarding fortifications - just as an example, what did artillery do to the defenders on some of the heavily fortified islands like Iwo Jima and Okinawa? What level would those IRL forts be considered in-game?

Artillery, aerial bombardment and ship to shore bombardment was ineffective at breaching the deepest and sturdiest forts in these examples, although it did cause some appreciable damage to the beachfront pillboxes, above ground installations and lighter fortifications on Iwo, IIRC.

I think Iwo would have to be 8-9 rating, with all the interconnected tunnels, dug in heavy artillery and the like. Okinawa varied more, but certainly the redoubt around the Shuri castle and ridges north were warrens of interlocking pillboxes and tunnels. Not to mention some of the old caveside burial crypts that were so effective defensive points. Maybe 7-8 for Okinawa by my reckoning?

[KenchiSulla]

I am not to sure to sure about artillery problems in game. I did a first bombardement round on Hong Kong with the standard stack and caused about 100 casualties so that seemed fine to me.

I do know that if you stick 100.000 soldiers in a small area and start to shell the crap out of them they should be hurting. Not to sure about fortifactions although they should limit the effect.

I saw someone posting that artillery was used to cut signal lines, disrupt resupply etc. This is true but it was also used to wreak havoc on troops. For example, 30th corps Artillery kept the 1st airborne division at Oosterbeek alive.

[budman999]

Once the Japanese learned their lessons earlier in the war (Betio - Tarawa), they entrenched heavily on islands they considered of strategic importance.
Even the bombardments at Tarawa (surprisingly) were not considered all that effective by the Japanese, other than to disrupt communications between
posts on the island(s) and to inhibit movement of reinforcements.
Casualties from naval bombardments were relatively light on heavily entrenched troops. Equipment that was well hidden or heavily entrenched suffered little damage,
and were not put out of action until direct observed fire was introduced via aircraft or ships or they were cleared by close assault.

Artillery is generally employed as a suppression weapon. In other words, when employed it can aid actions (ie. an attack) by keeping the opponent in a situation where they are unable to respond to my actions or can be used by me to disrupt the actions of the opponent (damaging their attack) when defending. Damage to men and material generally is considered a secondary, though much desired effect. (I'm not saying it can't cause large casualties, it can especially to an attacker over defensible terrain.)
A bombardment is more likely to cause disruption and loss of morale over a period of time than sustained casualties, as was proven time and again in WWII. Once soldiers go to ground, the casualties inflicted by artillery drops quite a bit (surprise is always desired whenever possible).

Artillery was rarely used as direct fire weapon, and in essence should not be treated as such. The 'accuracy' should be far less than that of a direct fire weapon.
I've been on missions trying to hit a small target (pillbox, tank, etc.) and it is difficult, even with modern devices helping (other than by sheer volume of fire).

Does the WITP:AE model treat artillery as a direct fire system? And what is the rate of fire like?

[ColCathcart]

Is it possible that part of the problem is generic N x M issue  - the same which was apparently responsible for overbloody aircombat in original WitP? I mean if single arty unit during bombardment phase had an opportunity to shoot at each and every unit in enemy stack then it would result in accumulating unrealistic number of casualties in case of large stacks. Would be interesting to see test results with bombardments against variable number of enemy units in a stack.
 

[Rob Brennan UK]

ORIGINAL: Mynok


Keep at the testing guys. Kudos for being forthcoming and honest without denigrating the devs as I know they are looking at this. We all have a stake in making this game better. [8D]

<waves hand to agree> seconded.

In addition I would like to thank all contributors to this thread for being civil and level headed. And lo and behold we get the Devs who can read the situation and can comment on it without fear of derogotary comments or personal attacks.

Keep it up folks , this is the way forward from the shadowy dells of recent lows to the sunny uplands of reason and civility ( tad florid there [:D]).

[Chickenboy]

ORIGINAL: Rob Brennan UK
Keep it up folks , this is the way forward from the shadowy dells of recent lows to the sunny uplands of reason and civility ( tad florid there [:D]).

Ugh. Too late, Rob. We just hit one those shadowy dells again, old chap.[;)]

[Altaris]

ORIGINAL: ColCathcart

Is it possible that part of the problem is generic N x M issue  - the same which was apparently responsible for overbloody aircombat in original WitP? I mean if single arty unit during bombardment phase had an opportunity to shoot at each and every unit in enemy stack then it would result in accumulating unrealistic number of casualties in case of large stacks. Would be interesting to see test results with bombardments against variable number of enemy units in a stack.

I think this is the core of the issue. I did some testing a few weeks back, and found that casualties for defense stayed roughly the same percentages when the defending numbers were changed, but the attackers were not. Thus, with a defending stack of 100K taking 6,500 casualties a day, a second case scenario of 1K was taking about 700 casualties a day (pretty much the same percentage).

So yes, it seems ART hits every single defending unit equally, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Perhaps it should receive some bonus for concentrated units, but this is very high.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Shark7
Disabled squads do repair quickly with supply, while destroyed ones take a while.

LOL you must never play the Chinese. It takes months sitting at a rear area base in rest mode to recover large chunks of disabled squads for the Chinese. Only Japan can recover theirs in front line bases in just a few days. Once a squad is disabled in a Chinese unit that is in combat, for all purposes you should think of it as destroyed. It won't have time to recover.

Jim

[khyberbill]

It won't have time to recover.

Isn't that the truth! It is one of the problems in China. With a good commander, supply and an HQ in the same hex it will repair 1 squad a day. I have units with over 300 disrupted squads, and just send them to Chungking.

[bklooste]

For logistics purposes the following rules could apply:
1 - Any unit using bombardment will use 5 x the logistics supply of a normal (non-artillery) unit.
2 - If the unit cannot draw 5 x the supply the unit could still fire but then the effects of the bombardment are reduced by 20% for each 20% of supply (rounded down) that
the unit cannnot draw. Example: An artillery unit wishes to bombard. A normal (non-artillery) unit would require 1000 supply. An artillery unit using bombardment
would require 5 x 1000 (5000) supply to fire at 100%. If there was only 2000 supply the unit would fire at 40% of its bombardment value.

Why reduce the amount of arty according to th enumber of units ? At the size hexes with Death Stars we are talking about WWI style conflicts where there is a frontage of maybe 10 divisions. This will mean you can run a Land Death star and US artillary will not do much damage either.

I note the above combat was in an open hex, it is also worth noting that in the Battle of Changsha in 42 almost 90,000 were killed ( so ~200,000 casualties) in a 2 week batlle ( 120K Japanese vs 300K CHinese) most from the Japanese which were encircled. Note in the battle
"
On January 1, the Chinese quickly counter-attacked and surprised the Japanese with heavy guns and inflicted heavy casualties on them.
"

Changes suggested.
- Arty bombardment consumes *3 supplies.
- I do agree fortrifications should reduce casualties significantly
- Units in combat mode should be dug in unless its attacking .

Also note you should use reserve see the Nomahan Redux AAR as this will remove units from the front line. It is VERY important historically ahainst heavy artillary to have significant reserves and small front lines. If you are doing a mass attack against a huge artillary bombardment you should expect massive losses.

[bklooste]

DAY1

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 110187 troops, 1048 guns, 478 vehicles, Assault Value = 4010

Defending force 103976 troops, 487 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3930

Japanese ground losses:
59 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
6223 casualties reported
Squads: 65 destroyed, 147 disabled Non Combat: 137 destroyed, 319 disabled
Engineers: 11 destroyed, 17 disabled
Guns lost 11 (2 destroyed, 9 disabled)

Note only 65 combat squads destroyed. Why so many non Combat in the hex historically the Chinese evacuated these including HQs etc .
Nothing wrong with these results it is not unusual to see 6000 casualties in a heavy day of combat with 100K+ forces


Attacking force 110142 troops, 1048 guns, 478 vehicles, Assault Value = 4005

Defending force 99548 troops, 485 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3695

Japanese ground losses:
60 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 1 (0 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
1718 casualties reported
Squads: 42949658 destroyed, 117 disabled
Non Combat: 37 destroyed, 152 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 5 disabled
Guns lost 8 (1 destroyed, 7 disabled)

Except for the bug note the massive reduction maybe troops are asumed dug in now and surprise is lost.

If your concerned Japan can blead you dry , definetly . You cant sit there under artillary for ever ( if they have the supplies) historically China won a great victory but they had to move large parts out of the city and maneuver and they committed 300K troops as the city is so important. If you sit there you will just trade casualties for Japanese supplies.

[Canoerebel]

65 squads is a heck of alot of destruction in a single day of bombardment (not combat).  The Chinese only get 200 squads per month.  If you lose 65 in one day in one hex, math tells you you're in a serious net loss situation.

So, what happened at Sian?  A little more than a week ago, Sian was the bastion on the north line of the Chinese MLR.  I had 4,000 AV there behind four forts.  My troops were well-rested, high morale (most at 99%), and high experience (50-55%).  Supplies were low due to the usual problem in China exacerbated by the strategic bombing campaign against my industry.

Then a Japanese army arrived - 4000 AV with 7 artillery units (three mortar, three medium FA, one heavy FA).  You'd think with 4,000 AV against 4,000 AV a long siege would be in order.  You'd also think that given the quagmire nature of the real war in China that a long siege would be in line with what happened historically.

Instead, the Japanese blasted through Sian easily.  For all of us playing AE, this should be sobering unless my game is somehow an anomaly. 

How did Miller do it?  Well, it took him about 8 days as follows:

Days 1 & 2 - back-to-back bombardments already summarized above (6,223 casualties day one, 1,718 day two; Chinese AV drops from 4,000 to 3,600).

Days 3 & 4:  Japanese deliberate attack on day 3 comes off at 1:2, forts remain 4, Japanese suffer 6,397 casualties to 14,378 for the Chinese (110 squads destroyed, making a total of something like 200 in three days in this one hex).  The Japanese are the attackers but suffer less than half the casualties. The Japanese rest on the 4th day.

Days 5 & 6:  Japanese bombard inflicting 2,503 casualties (75 squads destroyed) day 5 and 1,519 on day 6 (36 squads destroyed).

Days 7 & 8:  Japanese deliberate attack at 2:1 drops forts to 3 and inflicted 7,584 casualties on the Japanese (who lose a horrific 7 squads) to 5,897 for the Chinese (who lose 33 squads).  On Day 8, a 4:1 attack drops forts to 2 and inflicted 5,156 on the Japanese and 6,540 on the Chinese.

Since the Japanese have acheived 4:1 odds and halved the fortification level, I have no choice but to withdraw from Sian.  So, in less than ten days, the Japanese easily take a heavily defended Chinese fort and suffer nearly no casualties in doing so.  Meanwhile, the Chinese army is close to being a wreck and will be if the Japanese attack next turn before the Chinese can leave the hex.

Now that Sian has fallen the Allies have lost essentially all of northern China.  The next stand will be in the mountains, then Kienko, then Chungking.

While 65 squads lost in a single day to a Japanese bombardment may not seem horrendous in isolation, when that piece is added to the rest of the puzzle it helps reveal the awfully skewed situation in China.

[Chickenboy]

Good post, reb. This issue bears ongoing discussion. Thanks for following it through.

[Mynok]

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Also note you should use reserve see the Nomahan Redux AAR as this will remove units from the front line. It is VERY important historically ahainst heavy artillary to have significant reserves and small front lines. If you are doing a mass attack against a huge artillary bombardment you should expect massive losses.

Interesting point I've not seen made as yet. Like to see some testing results.

[Canoerebel]

I switched about 1/5th of the Chinese troops to reserve status after the first two deliberate attacks on days 3 and 4. Having troops in reserve didn't seem to help.

Also, bklooste, I didn't attack the Japanese. I was on the defensive behind four forts.

[Kull]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Also be aware, that until fairly recently - last few months anyway - most of the AE team were unaware that neither terrain nor forts affected either artillery fire or aerial bombardments. We are starting to add such effects in - but we also have to race against time - and without many man years of testing we cannot totally rebuild the combat system. But, we are trying to add in some effects for forts and terrain for artillery and air - but it will not get perfect over night.

This is just part of Joe's post in the "Fortifications Recode" thread. Seems pretty clear the Devs are looking hard at the issue and have spotted some things to work on. I would just ask folks to be patient and keep Chickenboy's cautionary warning in mind before expecting too much too soon:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Unfortunately, once the 'nerf' pendulum starts swinging, it takes some time to find the right center without overcompensating. How many iterations of BB bombardment and B-17 bombardment did the stock WiTP go through? Many would say that these issues are still not satisfactorily modeled to their taste.

That said, this is a MAJOR development and suggests there is reason to be optimistic that improvements are coming.

[bklooste]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
65 squads is a heck of alot of destruction in a single day of bombardment (not combat).  The Chinese only get 200 squads per month.  If you lose 65 in one day in one hex, math tells you you're in a serious net loss situation.

200 per month....there must be an issue there 1200 squads per year or about 12K men , clearly thats wrong unless a squad suddenly became a battalion... I wouldnt be surprised if China got 200 per day ,Japan and the US do.

I switched about 1/5th of the Chinese troops to reserve status after the first two deliberate attacks on days 3 and 4. Having troops in reserve didn't seem to help.

Also, bklooste, I didn't attack the Japanese. I was on the defensive behind four forts.

Thats worth noting . Note i was thinking more like 2/3 should be on reserve with a good comander they will get comitted if attacked with 1/5 you shouldnt see much. Read the AAR it goes into much more detail and im spilling this 2nd hand.

[modrow]

Gentlemen,

let us get a bit more tied to facts. I have a feeling that some of us are discussing a bit "abstract", assuming a transfer from one nationality/theatre to another is possible. I think the problems of someone who is playing China in a PBEM are "typically Chinese", so let me try to illustrate some of them with data from my PBEM.

ORIGINAL: bklooste

200 per month....there must be an issue there 1200 squads per year or about 12K men , clearly thats wrong unless a squad suddenly became a battalion... I wouldnt be surprised if China got 200 per day ,Japan and the US do.

Why don't we look it up ? It's readily available:



Production is 200 squads per month. 6 per day, 19 during three days of production in January - it all matches.

But that production rate is not the limiting factor for replacements. As you see from the above data, which are from January 3rd 1942, 32 Chinese Inf squads have been used. That's a bit more than one per day. In other words, the recruiting output of China that actually reaches the troops is 1 squad per day. And this is the rate early in the game, when China still has relatively high supply levels. They are going down continuously. The production of Chinese infantry never reaches the LCUs.

To be continued...

Hartwig

[modrow]

Gentlemen,

let's next give those of you who did not play China in a PBEM so far a feeling for actual rates of recovery for disabled squads. This is the status of a unit at Chungking, which has HQs and is my best-supplied place in China, on December 10, 1941 and January 3, 1942, respectively. During the entire time, it has been sitting on rest/train.



Did anyone say "disabled troops recover quickly" ? These are the facts in China: A unit in a place with as much supply as you can get, HQs, away from the frontlines, resting continuously gets in 24 game days 9 (!) Rifle squads out of disruption.

Do you understand better why 100 disabled squads are a big issue for the respective player ? Given the present rate of reenablement, it takes me 10-11 months at a quiet base to get back to where I was before the bombardment. Those effects may be a bit too long-lived...

As a side note, one interesting aspect is that the other parts of the TOC get back into fighting condition much more quickly. Is the likelihood for recovery a device-dependent parameter ? If so, maybe the one for Chinese rifle squads should be checked / modified.

I hope these facts help to bring the discussion a bit closer to the facts rather than wild assumptions.

Hartwig