Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post descriptions of your brilliant victories and unfortunate defeats here.

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

GetAssista
Posts: 2836
Joined: Sat Sep 19, 2009 6:13 am

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by GetAssista »

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
Regiments lack firepower. Making a Division or Brigade adds heavy weapons that give greater punch in offence. In defence, forts and the defensive advantage are enough to make a Regiment much tougher.
No, my whole point is about parts vs whole w/o any additional devices. You don't get devices when recombining, you might get space for them (if the ID TOE allows, which is not the case most of the time for Japanese recombined IDs)

ORIGINAL: Ambassador
A big effect of not recombining the divisions is that enemy firepower may be concentrated on one of the subcomponents and cause a disproportionate amount of disabled then destroyed squads, when a full division has a bigger buffer to absorb disablements. Especially problematic if the player has the habit of doing shock attacks...
It does not explain the disproportionate losses. Incoming defensive firepower is the same, attacking mass of people and devices is the same. Why the drastic discrepancy then?
There are tests that can be done in this regard, like e.g. attacking something strong with several divisions and brigades several times through reloading the save and randomizing. Usually the most losses the attacker suffers is when a brigade ends up under defensive fire phase focus and is trashed. Not so many losses when the division is focused though.
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Alfred »

More flawed commentary.

For almost 5 years I've allowed these observations to go uncorrected. Recent commentary elsewhere has made me decide its time to bring in a professional assessment, for after all, as many around here like to point out, I don't know anything about AE.

Symon, both a key dev and with access to the code, a man whose work history had included system analysis, and an intellect far higher than most who post on the forum, published his tests in this thread

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... n&#3838006

to show that the generic whine that a complete division always performed better than a broken down division was just wrong. Look out for in particular his posts:

#15
#16
#17
#18
#20 (this post summarizes his conclusions)
#22 (where he tellingly makes the remark "Thing is that the forum posts on this subject are simply wrong.")

Note the honesty displayed by Symon regarding test weakness but also why it was so structured.

It really should make one consider why different testers might get different results. Surely it couldn't be that one test bed was better constructed than a different tester's test bed. How could different results be generated if the same conditions applied. And if creating the test beds is so simple, then why are the results different.

Alfred
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

I have gone to not always recombining sub units...although my preference to do so is still there. One, to reduce the number of units on the map as I suffer greatly from click fatigue, and two because with some of the ENG units the TOE changes and that might carry over to some of the other units.

Having them fight only bothers me on big river crossing and big battles with nasty terrain modifiers.

In this game, Japan's broad based assault means he needs the extra units...he is rampaging across Australia with single units, and tactic that only works when there are no airbases to punish him from.

I recall I have forced two full divisions to retreat, and two brigades/regiments plus put some good wear and tear on several more. In addition I have caught and inflicted heavy losses on at least two troop convoys, and lighter losses on several others.

But Japan is incredibly resilient and can come back from almost any short term loss this early.

Shared Alfred's post with Japan.





User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

I let Japan know about the presence of Stuart IIs in India surging thru his hapless troopers, along with the 25# artillery (the previous turn) and the great improvement in American fighter pilots tactics (as modeled in the game by a higher A2A skill). Hopefully he gets enjoyment from the knowledge...

User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19526
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: Alfred

More flawed commentary.

For almost 5 years I've allowed these observations to go uncorrected. Recent commentary elsewhere has made me decide its time to bring in a professional assessment, for after all, as many around here like to point out, I don't know anything about AE.

Symon, both a key dev and with access to the code, a man whose work history had included system analysis, and an intellect far higher than most who post on the forum, published his tests in this thread

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.a ... ion�

to show that the generic whine that a complete division always performed better than a broken down division was just wrong. Look out for in particular his posts:

#15
#16
#17
#18
#20 (this post summarizes his conclusions)
#22 (where he tellingly makes the remark "Thing is that the forum posts on this subject are simply wrong.")

Note the honesty displayed by Symon regarding test weakness but also why it was so structured.

It really should make one consider why different testers might get different results. Surely it couldn't be that one test bed was better constructed than a different tester's test bed. How could different results be generated if the same conditions applied. And if creating the test beds is so simple, then why are the results different.

Alfred

Thank you Alfred, that was very informative and from before I really started getting into the game. I bought WITP:AE that fall while I was a patient in a nursing home. I think that you may like this part by Symon the best:
. . . Maybe you could give Alfred a heads-up on this so he can continue doing what he does so well? . . .

While this part really caught my eye: [:'(]

Image
Attachments
Gripit.jpg
Gripit.jpg (28.53 KiB) Viewed 646 times
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child


Image
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19526
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by RangerJoe »

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I let Japan know about the presence of Stuart IIs in India surging thru his hapless troopers, along with the 25# artillery (the previous turn) and the great improvement in American fighter pilots tactics (as modeled in the game by a higher A2A skill). Hopefully he gets enjoyment from the knowledge...


When I stated that it was very educational for him, this was his reply:
Always is against Lowpe- his attention to detail is off the planet

But I did not post the video link for him. Do you think that I should?[8D]

Joe
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child


Image
T Rav
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 6:59 am

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by T Rav »

RJ,

If you're talking about the Winged Ones, then absolutely post away!
T Rav

Only my opinion, of course
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Putting the finishing touches on the turn....dithering on how aggressive to be around Chittagong. Sending in the mtbs against the Heavy Cruiser is a certainty at Chittagong, if for no other reason than expending ammunition.

I also might turn on reinforcements in Java...

User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Turning on reinforcements, with support squads stockpiled, for the day. Wanted to get a picture to see the impact.



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (119.03 KiB) Viewed 646 times
Ambassador
Posts: 1756
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Ambassador »

You have a good stock of supplies, for that number of troops. Do you have some infantry squads and guns too ?
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Jan 23, 1942

Raid on Akyab shipping...



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (314.44 KiB) Viewed 651 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Another pretty bombardment.

Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (82.31 KiB) Viewed 651 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Trusty, clean up, aisle one please![:'(]

Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (388.42 KiB) Viewed 651 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

At least they expended a fair bit of ammunition....great gunnery by the IJN here.

Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (281 KiB) Viewed 651 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Flying Tigers get in among the bombers...



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (151.73 KiB) Viewed 651 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

Bad news...our adjusted AV was only 209. Yuck.



Image
Attachments
a.jpg
a.jpg (405.44 KiB) Viewed 651 times
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

A tough fight...I didn't want. Oh well, caused a lot of disruptions for it.
Ground combat at Hengyang (80,53) Thought I had it stymied until the final odds were shown...

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 53759 troops, 410 guns, 60 vehicles, Assault Value = 1440

Defending force 42599 troops, 146 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1182

Japanese adjusted assault: 865

Allied adjusted defense: 209

Japanese assault odds: 4 to 1 (fort level 1)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Hengyang !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
3095 casualties reported
Squads: 11 destroyed, 423 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 22 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 17 disabled
Guns lost 14 (1 destroyed, 13 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
20147 casualties reported
Squads: 314 destroyed, 99 disabled
Non Combat: 621 destroyed, 63 disabled
Engineers: 99 destroyed, 7 disabled
Guns lost 38 (33 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Units retreated 7

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
39th Division
19th Ind.Mixed Brigade
115th Infantry Regiment
12th Ind.Mixed Brigade
22nd Division
102nd Infantry Regiment
11th Ind.Mixed Brigade
2nd Ind.Mixed Regiment

Defending units:
46th Chinese/B Corps
10th Chinese Corps
46th Chinese/C Corps
99th Chinese Corps
20th Chinese Corps
4th Chinese/C Corps
3rd War Area
User avatar
Lowpe
Posts: 24582
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2013 2:25 pm

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Lowpe »

More minefield goodness, this was a two sub drop of American mines.

TF 158 encounters mine field at Akyab (54,45)

Japanese Ships
DD Isonami
DD Yugure

2 mines cleared


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 158 encounters mine field at Akyab (54,45)

Japanese Ships
DD Yugiri
DD Ariake
xAK Kasyu Maru, Mine hits 1, heavy damage
DD Isonami, Mine hits 1, heavy damage

3 mines cleared


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TF 158 encounters mine field at Akyab (54,45)

Japanese Ships
DD Yugiri
DD Isonami, heavy damage
DD Yugure

4 mines cleared
Ambassador
Posts: 1756
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 5:15 pm
Location: Brussels, Belgium

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Ambassador »

You had only four corps and one fort level in Hengyang ?
Alfred
Posts: 6683
Joined: Thu Sep 28, 2006 7:56 am

RE: Spanking Lowpe (NJP72 vs Lowpe (A))

Post by Alfred »

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

I have gone to not always recombining sub units...although my preference to do so is still there. One, to reduce the number of units on the map as I suffer greatly from click fatigue, and two because with some of the ENG units the TOE changes and that might carry over to some of the other units...

These are perfectly valid reasons to support combining divisions. They are however only preferences which other players might not share. Being preferences is the main reason why I haven't waded in to this debate over the years. Much as I don't wade into the interminable arguments over which aircraft Japan should research/produce which ultimately is a debate over preferences and opinions, not over objective game mechanics issues.

I have no doubt that there will be readers who only superficially read the 2015 Symon thread. Those people will miss the basic reason (discerned from other Symon posts in the thread which I did not draw specific attention to) why Symon carried out the testing.

The testing was part of the development of the small scale DaBabes scenarios which were designed around small unit combat. Accordingly those scenarios had broken down divisional structures with divisional artillery separated into its own subunits, not dispersed amongst the infantry. It was therefore important to establish whether in combat the game engine would penalise small units compared to aggregated units. The tests allayed any concerns Symon might have had.

Alfred
Post Reply

Return to “After Action Reports”