New Mod Leister - Scenario 28 full Pacific War

[xlegendre]

Hi,

here some answers.

To Commander Cody

Aviation changes is mainly based on :
- Adapt characteristics to historical value (speed, range, armament...)
- Adapt characteristics of weapons (mg, canons), based on data available on effectiveness (see http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk)
- Adapt production for allies, based on historical data available about Pacific Theater : two key-documents
-> NAVAL AVIATION COMBAT STATISTICS—WORLD WAR II of the AIR BRANCH OPNAV-P-23V NO. A129 17 JUNE 1946 OFFICE OF NAVAL INTELLIGENCE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS NAVY DEPARTMENT WASHINGTON, D. C.
-> AFD-090608-042.pdf, published on the web site of a research institute of the USAAF (sorry I can not remember the web site)

A useful link is also http://www.history.navy.mil/a-record/ww ... loc-ac.htm, who supply the location of US marines aircraft for different periods.

After updating data, I tested and adjusted durability and maneuver items to obtain correct results in terms of success depending on type of aircrafts (ex : A6M2 versus F4F-4, Ki-84-Ia versus P-51D...).

Main differences I found was :
- non realistic result, A6M was quite inefficient against even no-modern allied fighters
- B-17 production is too important in WITPAE, B-17 was used early in the Pacific War but was then withdraw for Europe Theater and replaced by B-24, more adapted to long range bombing and scouting
- data for mg / canon not accurate in terms of damage / efficiency


To hades1001 :

P-47D-25 is a sub-series of P-47D, and has exactly the same characteristics. It is not useful. P-47D (slot 349) will upgrade to P-47D (slot 516) to reflect increased production. Same for P-47D-25 (slot 350) whose production is 0, that will upgrade to P-47D-25 (slot 366) to obtain a boosted US Thunderbolt production nearly the end of the war.

About P-40M, this is a choice, because P-40L was producted in a large quantities and then replaced by the final version P-40N. Moreover the production duration is very limited : 4 month to obtain 80 planes (20 per month during 4 month).

[hades1001]

How about making the IJN Jack and George carrier capable while USN Corsair is not.

The first available Jack could be as early as 12/42. How many Sentais can be upgraded to Jack and George?
Has the carrier battle be tested? I kind feel that the IJN carriers would be too strong if all IJN Sentais can be upgraded to Jack and George.

[hades1001]

Also the anti-soft and anti-armor capabilities of IJ infantry squadrons are boosted so much while the Allied infantries lost a good trunk of its anti-soft and anti-armor capabilities.

Would you please explain the reason behind this change?

I just feel its weird that IJ infantry squadrons are as powerful as the US infantry squadrons if not better. They are not even close.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: hades1001

How about making the IJN Jack and George carrier capable while USN Corsair is not.

The first available Jack could be as early as 12/42. How many Sentais can be upgraded to Jack and George?
Has the carrier battle be tested? I kind feel that the IJN carriers would be too strong if all IJN Sentais can be upgraded to Jack and George.

In my personal mod, I make the Jack and George carrier capable, but only so the most sentai can upgrade to them. I then have a house rule that they can't be used offensively from CV's. So, if you convert, the squadron becomes LBA. Which is fine as it allows you to upgrade air groups from lost CV's to something quite useful.

I'm not sure about the Jack, but the George was so high centered, it really would have been an unlikely CV fighter.

[xlegendre]

PaxMondo is right : about George and Jack, the objective is to allow A6M land-based sentai to be upgraded to such models, but it is forbidden (through a house rule presented in the mod) to upgrade carrier-based A6M sentai to these last.

About IJ squads, this is based on squad components (number of soldiers, number and type of both personal and support weapons...). An excellent web site for allied is http://www.bayonetstrength.150m.com , and for Japan http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/Japa...HB/HB-3.html#I.

You must take in account that IJA squad were formed of nearly 14 men and that were was a specific 14-men squad equipped with "knees" mortar of 50mm for each 3 "rifle" squad. As I did not include "mortar" squad, I upgraded the IJA squad to reflect the impact of these support weapons.

On the other side, please consider the british squad, who was "only" 12-men strong.

For USA, you will see that in 41 and 42, of course, US squads are not so strong. But it is reversed in 43 and more in 44, with combat value far more important than IJA : IJA do not upgrade during the course of the war, but US squad were better equiped each year passing, especially marines squad with a lot of MG in "type F" and "type G" marines squads.

I do not remember if I posted data I used for squads and devices (AFV, artillery, AA) on Internet, please check http://up-master.com/data/Witpae-Fichiers-tests.zip.

[hades1001]

Here is some of my observations:

A full strength JAP Div has over 500 AV while the US　marine Div only have around 300 AV(I don't know why all the MMG sqds were not counted as part of the AV). These changes make me wonder what the land combat results would those changes lead to.

Despite the initial exp and morale advantages of the IJ LCUs, the allied LCUs are much less effective, with less AV in each Div and Bde. Is there any measures to balance this situation?

[xlegendre]

As I mentioned it before, I tested battle result with all that was modded. The result is in the Excel files zipped in the zip files, you have the link just above.

D type Marine Division is quite inferior to IJA standard triangular division with a ratio of 0,9 in terms of squad destroyed / disabled.

But in 42, Marine division should upgrade to E-type, then to F and G type with years passing. And the ratio become 2, in favor of allied : IJA division loose twice more squads than US counterpart.

So it reflects the fact that US Marines are well equiped with superior weapons beginning I think in the mid of 42, before Guadalcanal.

Please check.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: hades1001
A full strength JAP Div has over 500 AV while the US?@marine Div only have around 300 AV(I don't know why all the MMG sqds were not counted as part of the AV). These changes make me wonder what the land combat results would those changes lead to.

Despite the initial exp and morale advantages of the IJ LCUs, the allied LCUs are much less effective, with less AV in each Div and Bde. Is there any measures to balance this situation?

THE major killing instrament of the Second World War was artillery..., and Japanese artillery was lousy. Obsolete designs, poor fire control, lack of radios, you name it and the Japanese didn't have it. Whereas the Western Allies had the beest artillery and fire control of all the waring powers. The proof is in the pudding..., and the only successes the IJA had after the initial surprise wore off consisted of holding out in caves and fortifications longer than expected. Their offensive efforts always ended in total futility and disaster.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: hades1001

Here is some of my observations:

A full strength JAP Div has over 500 AV while the US?@marine Div only have around 300 AV(I don't know why all the MMG sqds were not counted as part of the AV). These changes make me wonder what the land combat results would those changes lead to.

Despite the initial exp and morale advantages of the IJ LCUs, the allied LCUs are much less effective, with less AV in each Div and Bde. Is there any measures to balance this situation?

Remember that unadjusted AV is simply an add-up of device values. There's no attempt at effect comparison. Simple example is a Tank device. whether a tankette or a JS-III. Both add one to unadjusted AV. (i.e. If two different LCU's contained one example of one device.....say LCU A contains 1 x Tankette and LCU B contains 1 x JS-III (Heavy tank)....they'd both have the same AV (unadjusted) which would be 1.)

[xlegendre]

Nikademus is right, the Marine squad improves greatly in both soft and hard attack through the year, from D-type to G-type all along the war. It count only as 1 AV, like a chinese squad, but it has only no sense to compare these two : on one side chinese were poor soldiers, with few equipment, on other side you have a E marine squad full of mortar and mg for support weapons. Still only 1 AV for each, but the soft and attack value will make the difference, as well as many other parameters (being tired, leader's abilities, type of landscape, disruption...).

[vettim89]

Leister, I have a couple of questions. First you list quite a few changes you have made and the resources. However, you really haven't given us a general idea of the rationale behind your changes. I am sure the data you decided upon was not simply what you thought it shoudl be as far as a/c, ship armament, etc. Just wondering what was working premise behind your work? Was it to be more historical? or was it to correct perceived database errors? or perhaps just using a different approach to computing database values?

Second, it has been pointed out that the DaBabes set of scenarios already use "Scenario 28". Would it be possible for you to change your scenario to a different number? say scenario 38?

[hades1001]

My concern is based on my AE stock experience.

The Jap land forces are quite unstoppable on clear terrain. They have superior exp and morale for most of the first line Divs despite whatever they and their opponent were equipped.

Things changes when Jap forces fights in a Wd/WR/MT/SWP/UI/UH terrain hex. My exp in last PBEM is that a mixed force of Aussie, India and British troops with a total of 1200 AV(exp and morale varies) hold Delhi(4 lv fort, UI terrain) for quite a long time under the siege of 6,000-7,000 plus AV Jap Southern Army. And they inflicts a hell lot of casualties to the Japs before Delhi was taken because finally they ran out of supplies.

The casualties of each Jap deliberate attack is 2,000-3,000(A) verse 6,000-9000(IJ). And this happened in April, 42.

Another example is I have around 1,500 AV in Wellington(4 lv forts,Wd terrain), 1 US Div(55 exp 99 morale) together with all other NZ troops against the same Southern Army in Delhi.
The casualties of each Jap deliberate attack is 1,500-2,000(A) verse 12,000(J). With plenty supplies in Wellington I managed to defeat the Jap's plan of taking NZ.

I'm worrying that in your MOD Jap will take much less casualties and achieve higher adjusted odds in land combat. Thus it will makes it even harder to stop Jap's attack in 1942 once they landed.

I have looked through your test file and under the impression that Allied forces are suffering much more casualties then I would estimate.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[xlegendre]

To vettim89 :

My first idea was to correct database information I found not correct, for planes. It was more about planes armament, range, speed... Also, I was frustrated to not have a production for plane taking into account the fact that production lines were installed through all the war by United States. I mean as soon as you obtain the F6F-3 for example, you have the "full" production rythm starting on the first day. It was really not the case when you take a look at aeronautic production number in US.

So it was the first step, just to have from my point of view accurate data for planes. Doing the job for planes, I also checked navy as I have some useful book on them.

And when I finally ended my work, I found myself disappointed with land combat result, specifically about japanese troops against philippins conscript army and chinese troops. It was the more important step, as long as I started to make extensive research about order of battle to be sure to not forget something, and also to find all information I can on army organisation (I mean number of men per squad, personal armament, effectiveness of equipment...).

I first relooked the whole japanese data about LCU and devices. Doing so I found that vanilla OOB did not really take into account important point :
- IJA squad were A-type or B-type, the A-type being more "heavier" in terms of squad (higher number of men)
- Some divisions were still organised with four regiment, not the usual 3 for triangulars. It was especially frustrating, as playing japanese, when you were to recombine units to form the initial division, you were loosing a regiment on the 4 regiments that would normally constitute a div (ex : 18th div, one of the more effective for japanese initially in the war).

Doing the job for IJA, I then thought it was also necessary to do the same work for allied armies in the Pacific.

So I would say it was not my intention initially to make a whole complete mod. But adjusting some data conducted myself to finally adjust all data that was available to me.


To hades1001 :

I fear you are right to some point, as long as I do not know the exact mechanic of game calculation to decide what is the issue of a battle and what is really being taken into account and to which level. My approach in terms of "game value" in the mod (mean soft and hard attack value for example) is empirical.

The fact that is sure is that in 42, allied armies were at least not effective during the first semester of 42 : they were for the most part inexperimented, badly equiped, and ill-coordinated. It was clearly true for british troops, experimented troops were sent in North Africa at this time, along New Zealand and Aussies troops. Japanese were at the opposite : they had considerable experience of war through there conflict with China since 37, specific training in jungle environment, a strong organisation and the will to fight and defeat their opponents.

In terms of gameplay, it would be logic for allied player to save as long as possible its forces to obtain reinforcement (US units, Aussies, New Zealand troops and british troops sent back from North Africa / Middle East to Asia theater). But I am pretty sure that a well defended base by allies units will not be easy to capture for japanese troops, without concentrating too much units and abandoning in fact some key points or regions to conquer.

US obtain quite rapidly significative reinforcement, and have some marines regiments at start. British also obtain rapidly some divisions that should not be wasted initially. Indian troops are equivalent to british units, and should be kept to defend mainly India better than to try to stop initial invasions of IJA/IJN of south east Asia I thing.

I have currently 3 games started with allied opponents, we are still in December so it is too soon to point some issues.

[ckammp]

ORIGINAL: leister2

As I mentioned it before, I tested battle result with all that was modded. The result is in the Excel files zipped in the zip files, you have the link just above.

D type Marine Division is quite inferior to IJA standard triangular division with a ratio of 0,9 in terms of squad destroyed / disabled.

But in 42, Marine division should upgrade to E-type, then to F and G type with years passing. And the ratio become 2, in favor of allied : IJA division loose twice more squads than US counterpart.

So it reflects the fact that US Marines are well equiped with superior weapons beginning I think in the mid of 42, before Guadalcanal.

Please check.

The USMC D-100 series T/O was authorized on 1 July 1942. Total authorized strength was 19514. The 1st MarDiv, 2nd MarDiv, and 3rd MarDiv were all organized under this T/O; the 1st MarDiv and 2nd MarDiv both fought under this T/O at Guadalcanal.

The IJA actually had 3 standard triangular division T/Os - "A", "B", and "C". The standard "B" was the type used in the South Pacific ("A" types fought in China and Manchuria, "C" types were China garrison divisions). The standard "B" itself had several variations, depending on unit mission; thus authorized strangth was between 18000 - 20000.

So, roughly equal strength but USMC had, as you acknowledge, superior weapons. Why then do you claim that D-series USMC Divisions were "quite inferior" to IJA standard "B" Divisions?

And the USMC E-100 series T/O was authorized on 15 April 1943, not in 1942.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: leister2

I first relooked the whole japanese data about LCU and devices. Doing so I found that vanilla OOB did not really take into account important point :
- IJA squad were A-type or B-type, the A-type being more "heavier" in terms of squad (higher number of men)
- Some divisions were still organised with four regiment, not the usual 3 for triangulars. It was especially frustrating, as playing japanese, when you were to recombine units to form the initial division, you were loosing a regiment on the 4 regiments that would normally constitute a div (ex : 18th div, one of the more effective for japanese initially in the war).

Hi,

if you had looked closely at the game or into the editor before your (very interesting) mod, you would have found out that we (the developers) have taken into account the points mentioned by you:

- There are two IJA Infantry Squad types in stock AE (devices #707 and #709). The device #709 represents the heavier squads found in some IJA divisions. Just look into the editor.

- The regiments of divisions that had not been converted to the triangular format are in the stock game and can combine into the new divisions eventually formed from those 'surplus' regiments. You are losing nothing by combining regiments into divisions.

K

[khyberbill]

specifically about japanese troops against philippins conscript army and chinese troops.

The Chinese can not stop the Japanese troops in stock, why make it worst. The most unpleasant part of this game is playing as Allies against a determined Japanese foe in China. I just lost 1 1/2 years of inf/support squad production in one battle in a city.

[John 3rd]

...but I am NOT determined...



Seriously though...Bill is right. China is soooooo Nerfed it isn't even funny.

[Herrbear]

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I've downloaded and am having a look.

May I suggest you pick another scenario number as the DBB scenario already has taken No 28.

There should be a register!!!

I agree. Leister2 please renumber your scenario so it doesn't conflict with Da Babes. Thank you.

[xlegendre]

Hi all,

Scenario has been renumbered in slot 31, I updated the download link at the end of August.

Kereguelen, you are right, but why do you upgrade device #709 (representing Type A squad) to #710 (representing the equivalent of Type B squad) ?

I would be interested to know how you managed to define soft and hard attack for squads, both for japanese troops and allied troops. I was quite surprised to see the improvment of US squads, especially in terms of soft attack. I think it is quite difficult to manage to evaluate and compare squad forces... and you have to make choice.

About combination of 4 regiments to form back a square division, I agree with the fact that devices come into "surplus", but the TOE of the square division seems based still on a triangular one right ? And as long as the division loose squads in different fight, the fourth regiment will not be reinforced by replacement, not ?

One question, as I did not find any issue : imagine you define a TOE for a D-Marine Regiment, with a TOE upgrade path to E-Marine Regiment, same for a D-Marine Division with a TOE path to upgrade to E-Marine division. Three Marines regiments will help to form back the Marine Division, so each marine regiment will point to this division as their "prim unit". In this situation, the regiments may not have the "TOE upgrade path" filled right ? So if the player does not form the marine division (that will upgrade to the next TOE at the defined date), the regiment will never upgrade in terms of TOE. Tell me if I am wrong...

PS : playing witp, and then witpae, since game have been on the market, thanks for such a game [:)]


khyberbill, China troops have been defined differently : you are right with the fact that chinese squads have poor value (soft & hard). But there are numerous (and initially I defined troops at division level, but I did not have sufficient slot and went back to corps level). Two items to keep in mind :
- Chinese squads will upgrade accordingly to better personal weapons, in 43.
- You have different type of chinese squad : those who where historically trained by german advisors, who are equivalent to IJA (NRA "germanized" div, engaged for example in the initial battles of Shanghai). Those who are loyal directly to Tchiang-Kai-Chek, very specific divisions, quite strong, kept in Chungking and around. Those who where the core of the NRA loyal army, nearly 1/3 of chinese forces. And those who where infeoded to a local warlord, whose loyalty was questionable, and whose training and equipment would be very different from a zone to another.

During WWII, due to internal divergence, suspicion, and poor equipment, it was not possible for chinese army to even mount a full scale offensive against japanese. Each time chinese would make an important attack, they were strongly defeated. Their only way of saving their land was to defend, to defend and against to defend... sorry for this, sure it is not very interesting to play chinese... hopefully you have all others allied forces.

[hades1001]

My two cents here:

The anti-soft and anti-armor value in this game could be determined by the fire power of one squad.

While US rifle squad was equipped mainly with M1 Garand(50-55 rounds per minute in trained hands),
Japanese squads was purely equipped with Arisaka Type 38 rifle(30 rounds per minute in trained hands).
The US Army and marine squad was also equipped with rifle grenade, Thompson, flame thrower, Bazooka.

That's why you see the US rifle squad and USMC rifle squads gain a lot of anti-soft and anti-armor values in 1942. Meanwhile, the Jap rifle squads use only Arisaka Type 38 rifle through out the war.

That's why even with 2 more people in one Jap rifle squad, the fire power of the Jap rifle squads should be at least half the value of the US rifle squads.

And this difference is reflected in this game as anti-soft and anti-armor value. It should be based on the firepower, not the number of people in one squad.

And this is the part that I respectfully disagree with your modifications of the anti-soft and anti-armor values of both Jap and Allied infantry squad.