Artillery Death Stars Post Patch Two Hot Fix

[sfbaytf]

Depends. You have to actually get to the siege and keep the guns supplied with ammo.

[frank1970]

yes, but then you see the fortifications and you can fly recon missions etc. So the mobility is at least not so important. So even Japanese artillery officers should be able to hit a target or two. [;)]

[sfbaytf]

You're talking about the German army who had adequate radios, excellent observation optics and good coordination between the Luftwaffe and army-which allowed for spotters planes to relay info to the artillery.

Japan was a completely different story. Comparing the European theater to the Pacific theater is comparing apples and oranges.

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Big difference between Europe and Asia. The Japanese didn't have nearly as many radios, nor were they of the same quality as American radios. Land lines that had to be laid -which took time was also still in widespread use. Observation in the jungle and terrain of many parts of the Pacific theater made observation difficult.

Without a good communications net, observed targets, artillery is not going ot be as effective. You're also going to need a pretty sizable "tail" in the form of trucks, prime movers and repair shops to keep the transport fleet operational. Japan was very limited in all of the above.

WW1 was static trench warfare, by ww2 mobility had returned and that made the job of artillery more difficult-and good communications networks that could relay timely information to the gunners even more important.

In reality the IJA's ability to force march tens of dozen or hundreds of miles with a huge contingent of artillery and keep it supplied and rapidly connected to a communications net that could relay target information is questionable IMO.

Most of the areas had no road net. You'd be lucky to have just a trail. There's was a good reason why mortars and light "mountain gun's" were very useful in the Pacific. Hauling large caliber guns around was a diffuclut and in many cases an impossible task in many parts of the Pacific theater-even for the Americans.

I was enlisted in the Bundeswehr, working in a supply unit.
We had some guys to make this landlines. it takes about 1 hour to make one of 1 or 2 km length. So it is imho no problem to create a working communications network in a day. (at least not in Germany, might be different in jungle though).

[sfbaytf]

Once again your using Europe as an example. The IJA did not have the same military doctrine as was the case in Europe. The IJA did not place any emphasis on air/artillery coordination as was the case in Europe. In fact they didn't have in widepreas use spotter planes like other armies.

In fact I don;t think they had anything like the Fieseler Fi 156 Storch or spotter places like the American had.

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

You're talking about the German army who had adequate radios, excellent observation optics and good coordination between the Luftwaffe and army-which allowed for spotters planes to relay info to the artillery.

Japan was a completely different story. Comparing the European theater to the Pacific theater is comparing apples and oranges.

Do you know, how the best working German artillery - fire directing worked?
It was developed by Rommel (in WW1). He just draw a sketch of the landscape before him, lay a grid on it. then he reported via field telephone where the artillery hit and where it should hit. This had marvelous results, in a highly mobile war in the Balkans in 1916.
I cannot see, why the japanese should not have been able to do so in 1942.

[sfbaytf]

Once again there is a HUGE difference between your expererience in the Bundeswehr and the IJA during WW2. The IJA was short on everything and Japan had a relatively small industrial base. Everything needed at the front had to be shipped.

[sfbaytf]

Sure if Rommel could do it, so could Japan. Using that logic Japan could have produced a Panzer corps too...

[frank1970]

hm, doctrine might have been changed by the player, there are lots of planes, which can and do fly recon missions in AE.

I can see, that in RL the Japanese didn´t do it, but whys shouldn´t a player be able to change the way the JA use their artillery?

The problem I see is supplies. YOu are absolutely right, that artillery need lots of supplies and the capacity of the Japanese to transport supplies is to high in AE (for the Allies, too, btw).
I´d like to see "landships" transporting supplies over the map to the designated base, with the maximum speed allowed in the terrain. These should be interdicable, just like Pts.
I know it isn´t possible, but I´d like to see something like that in WITP III.

[frank1970]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Sure if Rommel could do it, so could Japan. Using that logic Japan could have produced a Panzer corps too...

I didn´t know Rommel produced a single tank [:'(].

Now, please. using a pen, a map/sheet of ricepaper and binoculars should be no problem for a Japanese officer. And I am quite sure it isn´t a too large logistical problem to give those items to some officers in each division. [;)]

Would the JA have been able to bring 400 guns to the fight and would they have been able to supply them the target identification would have been managed.

[Nemo121]

sbaytf,

Aye, concentrating that much arty and supplying it would be tough. On the other hand the discussion here is not whether it could be done but whether the effectiveness vs unentrenched troops once done is too great. I argue that it isn't.

[UniformYankee]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Once again your using Europe as an example. The IJA did not have the same military doctrine as was the case in Europe. The IJA did not place any emphasis on air/artillery coordination as was the case in Europe. In fact they didn't have in widepreas use spotter planes like other armies.

In fact I don;t think they had anything like the Fieseler Fi 156 Storch or spotter places like the American had.

I assume you've read Nomonhan - which is a decent description of Japanese Artillery "practice" (not so sure many of the countries in question had "doctrines").

Japanese artillery practice was actually very similar to all other major military powers - but then if you've read the indicated tome - you already knew that [:)].

[ETF]

So let me get this striaght 1k casualties a day is normal with some attached arty.....why in the wolrd would you close with the enemy. Just plaster them for a week maybe and then just walk in with a company or two and sweep the enemy division away? Wow I have a whole new appreciation for my 155's

[sfbaytf]

Here is the results from a PBEM I have going. We're playing 2 day turns. If my opponent doesn't retreat my atry will evicerate him. Seems way too powerful.

Ground combat at 58,45
 
Allied Bombardment attack
 
Attacking force 26470 troops, 530 guns, 655 vehicles, Assault Value = 935
 
Defending force 38883 troops, 499 guns, 207 vehicles, Assault Value = 1289
 
Japanese ground losses:
      923 casualties reported
         Squads: 8 destroyed, 37 disabled
         Non Combat: 12 destroyed, 63 disabled
         Engineers: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
      Guns lost 10 (1 destroyed, 9 disabled)
      Vehicles lost 7 (4 destroyed, 3 disabled)
 
 
Allied ground losses:
      19 casualties reported
         Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
         Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
         Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
 
 
Assaulting units:
    29th British Brigade
    26th Indian Brigade
    2nd Recce Regiment
    268th Motorised Brigade
    72nd British Brigade
    5th Indian Division
 
Defending units:
    5th/A Division
    41st Infantry Regiment
    4th Guards Division
    56th Infantry Regiment
    5th/B Division
    5th/C Division
    33rd/A Division
    56th Field Artillery Regiment
    54th Field AA Battalion
    15th Army
    3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
    18th Mountain Gun Regiment
    56th Field AA Battalion
    3rd Mortar Battalion




Ground combat at 58,45
 
Allied Bombardment attack
 
Attacking force 26499 troops, 530 guns, 654 vehicles, Assault Value = 941
 
Defending force 38241 troops, 498 guns, 203 vehicles, Assault Value = 1254
 
Japanese ground losses:
      1201 casualties reported
         Squads: 8 destroyed, 45 disabled
         Non Combat: 18 destroyed, 97 disabled
         Engineers: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
      Guns lost 25 (14 destroyed, 11 disabled)
      Vehicles lost 10 (2 destroyed, 8 disabled)
 
 
Allied ground losses:
      14 casualties reported
         Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
         Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled
         Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
      Vehicles lost 4 (1 destroyed, 3 disabled)
 
 
Assaulting units:
    72nd British Brigade
    2nd Recce Regiment
    268th Motorised Brigade
    26th Indian Brigade
    29th British Brigade
    5th Indian Division
 
Defending units:
    4th Guards Division
    5th/C Division
    5th/B Division
    41st Infantry Regiment
    56th Infantry Regiment
    5th/A Division
    33rd/A Division
    56th Field AA Battalion
    18th Mountain Gun Regiment
    3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
    54th Field AA Battalion
    15th Army
    56th Field Artillery Regiment
    3rd Mortar Battalion

[Canoerebel]

I agree.  Artillery is still too powerful.  It will work both ways - both sides will suffer a-historical casualties regularly.  But it will make it very difficult (as ETF pointed out above) for one side to advance on the other.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: sfbaytf

Here is the results from a PBEM I have going. We're playing 2 day turns. If my opponent doesn't retreat my atry will evicerate him. Seems way too powerful.

Ground combat at 58,45

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 26470 troops, 530 guns, 655 vehicles, Assault Value = 935

Defending force 38883 troops, 499 guns, 207 vehicles, Assault Value = 1289

Japanese ground losses:
     923 casualties reported
        Squads: 8 destroyed, 37 disabled
        Non Combat: 12 destroyed, 63 disabled
        Engineers: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
     Guns lost 10 (1 destroyed, 9 disabled)
     Vehicles lost 7 (4 destroyed, 3 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
     19 casualties reported
        Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
        Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
        Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Assaulting units:
   29th British Brigade
   26th Indian Brigade
   2nd Recce Regiment
   268th Motorised Brigade
   72nd British Brigade
   5th Indian Division

Defending units:
   5th/A Division
   41st Infantry Regiment
   4th Guards Division
   56th Infantry Regiment
   5th/B Division
   5th/C Division
   33rd/A Division
   56th Field Artillery Regiment
   54th Field AA Battalion
   15th Army
   3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
   18th Mountain Gun Regiment
   56th Field AA Battalion
   3rd Mortar Battalion




Ground combat at 58,45

Allied Bombardment attack

Attacking force 26499 troops, 530 guns, 654 vehicles, Assault Value = 941

Defending force 38241 troops, 498 guns, 203 vehicles, Assault Value = 1254

Japanese ground losses:
     1201 casualties reported
        Squads: 8 destroyed, 45 disabled
        Non Combat: 18 destroyed, 97 disabled
        Engineers: 1 destroyed, 1 disabled
     Guns lost 25 (14 destroyed, 11 disabled)
     Vehicles lost 10 (2 destroyed, 8 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
     14 casualties reported
        Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
        Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 3 disabled
        Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
     Vehicles lost 4 (1 destroyed, 3 disabled)


Assaulting units:
   72nd British Brigade
   2nd Recce Regiment
   268th Motorised Brigade
   26th Indian Brigade
   29th British Brigade
   5th Indian Division

Defending units:
   4th Guards Division
   5th/C Division
   5th/B Division
   41st Infantry Regiment
   56th Infantry Regiment
   5th/A Division
   33rd/A Division
   56th Field AA Battalion
   18th Mountain Gun Regiment
   3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
   54th Field AA Battalion
   15th Army
   56th Field Artillery Regiment
   3rd Mortar Battalion

What is so hard to understand?

Units caught in clear terrain WILL be hammered by artillary. That is what happened in RL, that is what is happening in AE.
Furthermore, what is the rest of the story in your example?
What is your opponents' units fatigue, morale, disruption?
Why isn't your opponent bombarding your units?

IMHO, there is nothing wrong, either with the results in your example, or with artillary in AE.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I agree.  Artillery is still too powerful.  It will work both ways - both sides will suffer a-historical casualties regularly.  But it will make it very difficult (as ETF pointed out above) for one side to advance on the other.

As has been pointed out before, if players use a-historical tactics, they will get a-historical results. Putting 6+ artillary units in the same hex with 6+ divisions is a-historic.

When you first raised the issue of Japanese Artillary Death Stars, you had a valid concern regarding the artillary model in AE. That concern has been addressed. Continuing now to blame undesired results on 'the game', is unfair.

It is unfair to the devs, who work hard to fix problems, only to hear still more cries of "The game is (still) broken!". And it is unfair to the many players who find no fault with the game as is.

I understand you have strong opinions about this subject, and you certainly have the right to express those opinoins, but isn't enough, enough?

[Jones944]

ORIGINAL: ckammp

I understand you have strong opinions about this subject, and you certainly have the right to express those opinoins, but isn't enough, enough?

"Not while the game is still borked!" will be the reply. [8|]

I believe the Dev's know how to filter the wheat from the chaff on the forums so I feel that the game and its future development are in good hands. [&o]

[Canoerebel]

Frankly, I don't understand the defensiveness.  The only way to bring issues to the attention of the developers is to bring issues to their attention.  We're not doing so in a rude fashion; we're not piling on; we're not slinging poisoned darts.  We love the game and when we think we see problems we want to point it out.
 
There is no way in the Pacific Theater (especially Burma) that you would have sustained bombardment casualties of this sort in WWII.  Either artillery is too powerful or it is too easy to mass artillery in this game.  If people (and the developers) are comfortable with this, fine.  The problem will cut both ways, so it will effect both sides.  But it does detract from the historic feel of the game.
 
 

[stuman]

....as well as ngfs

what is ngfs ?