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!
Come on, ckammp, half (or more) of the people that have chimed into this thread agree with the point. Even some of the developers acknowledge that utilizing too many arty units in open terrain is a problem, but that they don't know (yet) how to fix it without perhaps messing up the model when just a few arty units are employed. So it is a problem, but we don't know yet if there's a satisfactory solution.
I started this thread to register my concerns and it has generated plenty of discussions, for and against. If you don't like people voicing opinions contrary to yours...well, just ignore them. But don't tell them to shut up (which is what you're doing when you accuse them of whining).
Well my "opinion" is that due to a (very) few players opinions that artillery has been reduced by the DEV's to a mediocre supply sucking element of the game.
I have stacks of only a few arty units and I have stacks of many numbers of arty units and I find myself just resting half the time due to insignificant results versus supply usage.
Implementation of a cookie-cutter model is simple. Each shell has a lethal area, LAshell. Each shell takes out LAshell/BombardedArea, so the probability that a point target will survive the shell is 1.0-LAshell/BombardedArea. The probability that a target unit will survive the bombardment is the product of the probabilities that it will survive each shell, conservatively assuming independence. Group the shells based on lethal area. The probability of survival is the product over the groups of the probability that the unit will survive each group. The probability that the unit will survive a group is (1.0-LAshell/BombardedArea) to a power corresponding to the number of shells in the group. Take logs and compute the log of the overall survival probability, then exponentiate. Finally draw a U[0,1] random number and see whether the unit survives. Move to the next unit. A lot of the component probabilities need only be calculated once for a whole lot of units. You can even get by with expected values rather than testing for each unit. Supply is computed from the ammo expenditure. You quickly get diminishing returns.
While I somewhat agree, I did mean implementation into existing program code would be a beast. [;)] And I think your example is very "inflexible". [8D]
I was describing the required processing in pseudocode. It can be done with three methods/routines--one to compute the single-unit probability of surviving, one to efficiently process all the targets of a bombardment, and one to do the U[0,1] random number draw. I could write and test it in a day.
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
my two cents
1) Artillery is deadly when used in large numbers. A look at two major offensives on the eastern front shows that. take Operation Bagration, for example. the Sowjets massed something like 176 guns for a kilometer. At the Seelow hights, 1945, the numbers were even greater. The range for intensive sowjet artilleryfire was something like 3-6 kilometers.
results were the complete destruction of the german forward positions. At Seelow, these were pulled back because the attack seemed eminent before the barrage, resulting in the soviets shelling empty positions (which were completely destroyed). both times, we talk about entrenchements which had been build up for several months. still, they could not withstand the artillery.
2) Tactics against artillery emplied just that, a defense in depth. This tactic went back to WW1. The Forward positions were thinned out in order to have a main line of Defense a few miles back ( at Seelow, this defense reached to the back for about 15-20 km, far beyond the artilleryrange). In case of attack, reinforcements would be rushed forward after the initial artillery-attack.
What does this emply for the game.
what of a 40m hex is combat zone and what isn't?. Does the game differ? i do not know. There is the chance of putting units on reserve, meaning that they do not participate in the first round of combat but can enter the fight later (after the artilleryattack, for example). If i understood correctly, units on reserve are also affected by artilleryattack. This should be changed if it is the case, since they are positioned behind the frontline, out of reach of the artillery. so, if you have 16 chinese corps in a hex. 5 could hold the frontline and the rest be the reserve behind the front. This would solve the problem, apart form increasing the supply usage of artillery. Bombardements are expensive. at the Somme, 1916, they were 1437 british guns, which fired 1,5 Mio rounds over 7 days. That is a lot of Ammo and supply you use.
for another matter. This whole thing is also another China-discussion. historically, the japanese did not advance not because the could not, but because the did not want to! They really had all the economically interesting areas. And they had another war at hand. When they finally did go on a major offensive in 1944, they sliced through the kuomintang-army very quickly. So, it is realistic that the japanese can go whereever they want to in china, depending on how many troops and planes they use. But capturing the area is one thing, pacifying it another. I believe garrison-requirements were already adjusted. maybe some tuning is necessary in this area.
but so far i have not read an AAR in which Chungking fell or the whole kuomintang became POWs.
one more thing. In August 1945, when the bear comes alive, you can do the same thing on the japanese he has done on you as the chinese. The soviet Artillery rocks and will blow the japanese troops apart, same as the japanese did in china. There is an AAR about a japanese invasion of the SSSR in 1941 or 1942. As much as i can see, the japanese player has serious difficulties getting through. In 1945, the soviets are far stronger. time for revenge.
so, conclusions.
see to it that units on reserve cannot be damaged by artillery alone, or at least only slightly. should solve some of the problems.
Bougainville, November 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. It rained today.
my two cents
1) Artillery is deadly when used in large numbers. A look at two major offensives on the eastern front shows that. take Operation Bagration, for example. the Sowjets massed something like 176 guns for a kilometer. At the Seelow hights, 1945, the numbers were even greater. The range for intensive sowjet artilleryfire was something like 3-6 kilometers.
results were the complete destruction of the german forward positions. At Seelow, these were pulled back because the attack seemed eminent before the barrage, resulting in the soviets shelling empty positions (which were completely destroyed). both times, we talk about entrenchements which had been build up for several months. still, they could not withstand the artillery.
2) Tactics against artillery emplied just that, a defense in depth. This tactic went back to WW1. The Forward positions were thinned out in order to have a main line of Defense a few miles back ( at Seelow, this defense reached to the back for about 15-20 km, far beyond the artilleryrange). In case of attack, reinforcements would be rushed forward after the initial artillery-attack.
What does this emply for the game.
what of a 40m hex is combat zone and what isn't?. Does the game differ? i do not know. There is the chance of putting units on reserve, meaning that they do not participate in the first round of combat but can enter the fight later (after the artilleryattack, for example). If i understood correctly, units on reserve are also affected by artilleryattack. This should be changed if it is the case, since they are positioned behind the frontline, out of reach of the artillery. so, if you have 16 chinese corps in a hex. 5 could hold the frontline and the rest be the reserve behind the front. This would solve the problem, apart form increasing the supply usage of artillery. Bombardements are expensive. at the Somme, 1916, they were 1437 british guns, which fired 1,5 Mio rounds over 7 days. That is a lot of Ammo and supply you use.
A WWII infantry division was designed to occupy 8 kilometres of front to a depth of 8 kilometres. There were a line of outposts in contact with the enemy, a double line of positions making up the main line of resistance, and a division stop line in the divisional rear area. The divisional artillery occupied positions between the MLR and the divisional stop line. In the British Army, the divisional machine gun battalion was initially organised (in WWI) to man the brigade rear and divisional stop lines. A WWII corps (Japanese Army) was usually a operational command level without logistics functions, and an army (Japanese Area Army) had both operational command and logistics roles, with a depth and frontage of about 60-100 kilometres. So in game terms, a hex is the area occupied by an army.
for another matter. This whole thing is also another China-discussion. historically, the japanese did not advance not because the could not, but because the did not want to! They really had all the economically interesting areas. And they had another war at hand. When they finally did go on a major offensive in 1944, they sliced through the kuomintang-army very quickly. So, it is realistic that the japanese can go whereever they want to in china, depending on how many troops and planes they use. But capturing the area is one thing, pacifying it another. I believe garrison-requirements were already adjusted. maybe some tuning is necessary in this area.
but so far i have not read an AAR in which Chungking fell or the whole kuomintang became POWs.
one more thing. In August 1945, when the bear comes alive, you can do the same thing on the japanese he has done on you as the chinese. The soviet Artillery rocks and will blow the japanese troops apart, same as the japanese did in china. There is an AAR about a japanese invasion of the SSSR in 1941 or 1942. As much as i can see, the japanese player has serious difficulties getting through. In 1945, the soviets are far stronger. time for revenge.
so, conclusions.
see to it that units on reserve cannot be damaged by artillery alone, or at least only slightly. should solve some of the problems.
That's a piece of it...
Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com
Anyone with game results that go beyond philosophical / mathematical modeling assertions? In particular, I think we're looking for effects of artillery post patch in clear or open terrain without the presence of defensive entrenchments.
Does anyone have any in-game data to consider for this thread?
A WWII infantry division was designed to occupy 8 kilometres of front to a depth of 8 kilometres. There were a line of outposts in contact with the enemy, a double line of positions making up the main line of resistance, and a division stop line in the divisional rear area. The divisional artillery occupied positions between the MLR and the divisional stop line. In the British Army, the divisional machine gun battalion was initially organised (in WWI) to man the brigade rear and divisional stop lines. A WWII corps (Japanese Army) was usually a operational command level without logistics functions, and an army (Japanese Area Army) had both operational command and logistics roles, with a depth and frontage of about 60-100 kilometres. So in game terms, a hex is the area occupied by an army.
Yup, but this 60-100 km depth is not the frontline. Artillery at this timeperiod couldn't reach this far. so during a bombardement attack, only units up front should get in the risk of taking damage. So what is up front? the whole hex?
Bougainville, November 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. It rained today.
Anyone with game results that go beyond philosophical / mathematical modeling assertions? In particular, I think we're looking for effects of artillery post patch in clear or open terrain without the presence of defensive entrenchments.
Does anyone have any in-game data to consider for this thread?
sorry, didn't see your message when i replied, don't want to look ignorant. Your right, some in-game data would be nice.
Bougainville, November 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9. It rained today.
Agree completely. Some people are totally against house rules for maybe 'purist' reasons, but I think that's not wise; a game cannot be perfect, nor can it completely model history without being a totally rigid system without room for 'small' deviations. A house rule is simply nothing more than an agreement not to 'cheat' or 'game' the system - if you do NOT want a house rule, then you have to expect that there will be people who do indeed 'game' the system and figure out broken exploits. But to expect that all possible loopholes be closed is, IMHO, unrealistic. It's not possible to close all loopholes, i.e backdoors, in the most sophisticated programs costing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars (like banking systems) - so why is it expected that it could be done in a game costing a fraction of that?
Good points.
" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley
After months of quiet and "reasonable" combat results in China, I got a whacky result at Chengtah, China today. Chengtah has three forts, wooded hex, and the Chinese have been bloodying the Japanese in regular combat; so this awful result came out of the blue and it was repeated the following day:
Ground combat at Changteh (81,50)
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 2140 troops, 154 guns, 136 vehicles, Assault Value = 2449
Defending force 141903 troops, 668 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 5438
Japanese ground losses:
11 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Allied ground losses:
1509 casualties reported
Squads: 14 destroyed, 50 disabled
Non Combat: 25 destroyed, 66 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Guns lost 8 (2 destroyed, 6 disabled)
Assaulting units:
5th Infantry Regiment
15th Division
36th Division
23rd Division
31st Infantry Regiment
41st Division
13th Tank Regiment
34th Division
17th Infantry Regiment
37th
19th Ind. Engineer Regiment
3rd Ind. Engineer Regiment
6th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
2nd Ind. Engineer Regiment
9th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
1st Army
Tonei Hvy Gun Regiment
4th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
51st Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
3rd Hvy.Artillery Regiment
14th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
20th Ind. Engineer Regiment
Defending units:
76th Chinese Corps
67th Chinese Corps
2nd Chinese Cavalry Corps
18th Chinese Corps
59th Chinese Corps
45th Chinese Corps
91st Chinese Corps
60th Chinese Corps
53rd Chinese Corps
27th Chinese Corps
49th Chinese Corps
44th Chinese Corps
9th Chinese Corps
52nd Chinese Corps
16th Chinese Corps
87th Chinese Corps
55th Chinese Corps
5th Chinese Cavalry Corps
38th New Chinese Division
33rd Group Army
Lusu War Area
6th War Area
26th Group Army
2nd Group Army
20th Artillery Regiment
20th Chinese Base Force
6th Construction Regiment
17th Construction Regiment
1st Artillery Regiment
20th Group Brigade
41st AA Regiment
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
Here's what troubles me about these results.
The Chinese outnumber the Japanese at Chengtah. My opponent has tried three or four deliberate attacks and got beat up badly - the most recent attack cost the Japanese 20,000 troops and the Allies less than 2,000. The attacks have, however, managed to drop forts from six to three despite the low odds.
The Japanese can't take this hex by attack, but it looks like they might be able to reduce the defenses significantly by bombardment.
It looks like the Japanese have six artillery units which falls within the typical "one artillery per division" house rule.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
Nothing wrong with those results. On the East front Artillary was so bad that they just did not defend terrain that could not be defended and used reverse slopes to deny spotters teh abbility to target the division.
Historically very few WWII battles ( but it was common in WWI) had concentrations as mentioned the reason was not that it was not effective ,but the enemy would use tactis to surround the enemy and the concentration increased the effectiveness of the enmies artillary . Please re read the 2nd battle of Changsha it was the most critical battle in China durring 41-45 as the result brought the front to a stand still. Note Chinese had 300K troops ( Those troops most players throw away at Ichang) and most of their heavy artillry there. Also note the casualties over the few weeks.
Historically the Chinese picked thier battles very carefull and gave up ground when they were in a bad position.
The Chinese outnumber the Japanese at Chengtah. My opponent has tried three or four deliberate attacks and got beat up badly - the most recent attack cost the Japanese 20,000 troops and the Allies less than 2,000. The attacks have, however, managed to drop forts from six to three despite the low odds.
The Japanese can't take this hex by attack, but it looks like they might be able to reduce the defenses significantly by bombardment.
It looks like the Japanese have six artillery units which falls within the typical "one artillery per division" house rule.
I would be very interested in seeing the effects of this bombardment had you most of your troops in a reserve position, as PP have suggested. This action may decrease your casualties received and moderate the artillery effect in this example.
I'm fine with the way the post patch II / hotfix AE is modelling the effects of artillery on entrenched troops in rough or wooded terrain, and I think you indicated you were too in previous posts. Are you still interested in focusing this discussion on the effects of artillery on unentrenched troops in open terrain?
1. I've put 1/3rd of my troops in reserve, so we may know soon. But previous experience with reserve status (pre the last two hot fixes) suggests that it offers little if any help.
2. Forts have fallen from six to three. So, while the impact of artillery against six forts was reasonable, three forts aren't enough to prevent the heightened impact.
3. Artillery bombardments are inflicting more casualties than deliberate attacks and sustained aerial bombing (when the latter is directed at troops as opposed to airfields). Is this reasonable?
Based on these developments, I think we've answered this question:
1. Massed artillery bombardments agianst well-entrenched troops are reasonable. [I know level six forts seem to work fine, which suggests that 7-9 would do the same; I have no data for level 4-5].
The remaining questions:
1. Are massed artillery bombardments against slightly-entrenched troops [levels 1-3, possibly even 4 or 5] too effective?
2. Are massed artillery bombardments against non-entrenched troops too effective?
3. In addressing massed artillery, has the employment of a few artillery units been dampened too much?
I don't know the answers to these three questions. A wide variety of results will shed light on these questions.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
1. I've put 1/3rd of my troops in reserve, so we may know soon. But previous experience with reserve status (pre the last two hot fixes) suggests that it offers little if any help.
2. Forts have fallen from six to three. So, while the impact of artillery against six forts was reasonable, three forts aren't enough to prevent the heightened impact.
3. Artillery bombardments are inflicting more casualties than deliberate attacks and sustained aerial bombing (when the latter is directed at troops as opposed to airfields). Is this reasonable?
Based on these developments, I think we've answered this question:
1. Massed artillery bombardments agianst well-entrenched troops are reasonable. [I know level six forts seem to work fine, which suggests that 7-9 would do the same; I have no data for level 4-5].
The remaining questions:
1. Are massed artillery bombardments against slightly-entrenched troops [levels 1-3, possibly even 4 or 5] too effective?
2. Are massed artillery bombardments against non-entrenched troops too effective?
3. In addressing massed artillery, has the employment of a few artillery units been dampened too much?
I don't know the answers to these three questions. A wide variety of results will shed light on these questions.
The final answers:
1. No
2. No
3. No
All the examples of combat results from bombardment causing higher than histrical casualties, whether the results were posted in this thread or in AARs, can all be explained by the use of higher than historical numbers of artillery units.
Why continue to call for changes in the game? If your opponent insists on using gamey tactics, either insist on a house rule, or get a new opponent.
After months of quiet and "reasonable" combat results in China, I got a whacky result at Chengtah, China today. Chengtah has three forts, wooded hex, and the Chinese have been bloodying the Japanese in regular combat; so this awful result came out of the blue and it was repeated the following day:
Ground combat at Changteh (81,50)
Japanese Bombardment attack
Attacking force 2140 troops, 154 guns, 136 vehicles, Assault Value = 2449
Defending force 141903 troops, 668 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 5438
Assaulting units:
5th Infantry Regiment
15th Division
36th Division
23rd Division
31st Infantry Regiment
41st Division
13th Tank Regiment
34th Division
17th Infantry Regiment
37th
19th Ind. Engineer Regiment
3rd Ind. Engineer Regiment
6th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
2nd Ind. Engineer Regiment
9th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
1st Army
Tonei Hvy Gun Regiment
4th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
51st Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
3rd Hvy.Artillery Regiment
14th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
20th Ind. Engineer Regiment
Defending units:
76th Chinese Corps
67th Chinese Corps
2nd Chinese Cavalry Corps
18th Chinese Corps
59th Chinese Corps
45th Chinese Corps
91st Chinese Corps
60th Chinese Corps
53rd Chinese Corps
27th Chinese Corps
49th Chinese Corps
44th Chinese Corps
9th Chinese Corps
52nd Chinese Corps
16th Chinese Corps
87th Chinese Corps
55th Chinese Corps
5th Chinese Cavalry Corps
38th New Chinese Division
33rd Group Army
Lusu War Area
6th War Area
26th Group Army
2nd Group Army
20th Artillery Regiment
20th Chinese Base Force
6th Construction Regiment
17th Construction Regiment
1st Artillery Regiment
20th Group Brigade
41st AA Regiment
What was your SUPPLY level on your troops, from what i have experienced most of my troops are so low on supplys they wouldnt have any shells to fire back and on the other hand their all getting killed because there out catching rabbits and chewing on trees to feed themselves when the shells start falling.
I like the artillery model since the tweeks, i dont think its the model thats the problem i think its the fact you can get 15 artillery units to a single location, the model seems accurate the fact you can have a stack of guns is not.
This is China so you can imagine what the supply level is like - low.
I agree that a big part of the problem could be that you can bring so many artillery units to bear in a single hex (not saying that's it - just saying that MAY be part of it or even a big part of it). But there are still problems with the numbers of casualties caused, too. Especially against the rear-echelon troops.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
I have to say that it's look like Canoerebel is facing a whopping 6 artillery regiments - mostly of 105 to 155 mm range - and one battalion. This is maybe 140 arty tubes brought into a 40 mile hex supporting an attack against 140,000 well entrenched troops.
Nothing about the size of this stack seems at all unusual to me by any standards of world war 2 combat.
The model is obviously tweaked to fit a certain concentration norm and falling outside of that norm causes it to break down. It appears the model is designed for much smaller combats. At the same time, I see nothing at all a-historic about the troop concentrations being used here.
The question is - does one try and fix the model to work for a more varied range of troop/gun concentrations or does one set an arbitrary rule on stacking (arbitrary b/c it will have to be set artificially lower than what could and often was done historically for larger land mass combat).
Just my two cents. On the whole the changes to the model in patch 2/hotfix 3 were very positive and I'm glad the devs worked to make the changes.
