Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


My vote is for simultaneous combats as Sardaukar says. But barring that, the defender should always get to shoot first if combats have to be resolved sequentially. There is a natural advantage to defending and sequential combats should reflect that.

Jim

This is quite major my vote is side with the lowest AV goes first , you could modify the AV with a leadership/recon modifier. If this doesnt exist already.

Speaking of which does anyone have any Combat reports of 100K Japanese vs 300K Chinese including there heavy artillary ?

Most combats took place by a handfull of divisions on each side at most. Brigade and Regimental level actions were far more common than full out Corps level battles.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain
where 1000 japanese caused 6000 loss why
don't then 400-500 chinese guns do 2000-3000 loss to japanese?

Because combat is sequential. Japan fires first and obliterates all the Chinese guns, so there's nothing left to shoot back.

Jim

Umm nope... when Chinese counter fire later theres 400-500 guns and only like 40-50 japanese loss vs their doing 6000 with a bit over double the guns... so the question on supply

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns




Because combat is sequential. Japan fires first and obliterates all the Chinese guns, so there's nothing left to shoot back.

Jim

Yep, you got it.

In hexes where I don't have my Japanese guns bombard, the Chinese are able to get hundreds of casualties, just like mine are doing. Unfortunately the turn order is supressing the Allied bombardments. Might be a good idea to randomize the order if possible.

My pet peeve with WitP engine is that it is not true WEGO in land combat, since Japan goes first always. Combat should be resolved simultaneously when same units in same hex are involved.

Actually... in battles... often one side does inite a barrage... then other side counter fires trying aim at where fire came from... the one fireing first is firing where believe others guns are... so
really one fireing first should gain LESS in hits.. cause of guns movement... missing many that moved where the counter fire would be spotted onto where saw the firing first arty firing.

Arty sitting still would die so between firings usually their positions changed..

So really japan firing first shouldn't gain so much damage but game engine doesn't seem to put a proper fog of war into it... its simple numbers it seems... x firing does x damage... as if first firing knows exactly where every unit of opponent is and where all their guns are.

Of course I don't know the code... if theres any randomizing for damage...if not then it really doesn't sim the reality of arty fire and counter fire...

Arty in reality depended on spotters... and it was a chess game on both sides in where arty would be...

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


My vote is for simultaneous combats as Sardaukar says. But barring that, the defender should always get to shoot first if combats have to be resolved sequentially. There is a natural advantage to defending and sequential combats should reflect that.

Jim

This is quite major my vote is side with the lowest AV goes first , you could modify the AV with a leadership/recon modifier. If this doesnt exist already.

Speaking of which does anyone have any Combat reports of 100K Japanese vs 300K Chinese including there heavy artillary ?

Most combats took place by a handfull of divisions on each side at most. Brigade and Regimental level actions were far more common than full out Corps level battles.

True but im trying to see the losses for the Changsha42 battles with a historical TOE since we are talking about death stars

Heres why I think low supplies cause losses... Allied do a bombardment yet only they get losses...

Ground combat at Changsha (82,52)
 
Allied Bombardment attack
 
Attacking force 47037 troops, 231 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2635
 
Defending force 77836 troops, 809 guns, 211 vehicles, Assault Value = 2728
 
 
Allied ground losses:
      137 casualties reported
         Squads: 3 destroyed, 8 disabled
         Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 10 disabled
         Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
      Guns lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)
 
 
Assaulting units:
    99th Chinese Corps
    37th Chinese Corps
    53rd Chinese Corps
    73rd Chinese Corps
    18th Chinese Corps
    72nd Chinese Corps
    10th Chinese Corps
    78th Chinese Corps
    74th Chinese Corps
    44th Chinese Corps
    26th Chinese Corps
    8th Chinese/B Corps
    58th Chinese Corps
    8th Chinese/C Corps
    19th Group Army
    30th Group Army
    27th Group Army
    9th War Area
    17th Chinese Base Force
    29th Group Army
    5th Construction Regiment
 
Defending units:
    40th Division
    39th Division
    6th Division
    9th Armored Car Co
    3rd Division
    13th Division
    14th Division
    15th Ind.Medium Field Artillery Regiment
    2nd Ind. Engineer Regiment
    52nd Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
    4th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
    2nd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
    14th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
    1st Mortar Battalion
    51st Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
    7th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
 
 

Looks like the Japanese open fire before the Chinese and neutralize your 200 tiny guns with 800 guns before you get a shot off.....

Unit experience is bound to play a part as well. Poorly equipped, poorly trained troops will yield poor results.

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: bklooste
Durring the WOR the Chinese deaths were 3-4 million soldiers.

China did not lose 3-4 million dead, they lost 1.3 million dead from the Nationalist forces for the entire period 1937-1945. Also most of those killed in battle had already died by 1941. There was very little fighting in China after Pearl Harbor compared to what had gone on before Japan declared war on the rest of the world.

Sure there was fighting still, but nowhere near the same scale as before. Japan was for the most part content to simply sit on what they had and focus their efforts in the pacific.

http://worldwar2database.com/html/frame5.html

Jim

With Game:

If Japan is aggresive in China.. then japan burns supplies etc in china and has less for other areas...also the Reinf of troops would suck away afv, etc that would go to
other areas.

So a japan player attacking alot in China hurts things elsewhere.

Same could be said for an allied player... through allied player really cant that easy fight.. with WITP it was easier I think.. allied is more on defense and best sitting and defending the key points.

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain
Umm nope... when Chinese counter fire later theres 400-500 guns and only like 40-50 japanese loss vs their doing 6000 with a bit over double the guns... so the question on supply

Chinese guns that are well in supply do nothing even remotely comparable.

So no, I don't think it is supply. Maybe the Chinese 75mms have bad stats. Maybe it's their low experience. But in supply or out of supply, they get wasted.

It’s a combination of everything adding up to equal a very bad day every day for China in game. I don’t know the exact workings of the combat engine, but for examples sake let’s say China starts with 100 ready squads.

After rolls for things like weather, leadership, morale, fatigue, etc. etc., China may have 20 of those 100 squads available to fire in the fire phase (read bombardment for guns). Now to top it off, the individual stats of the Chinese equipment have been nerfed so low that you’d be lucky to get 1 hit out of the 20 squads that fire. And even if it is a hit, more often than not, it’ll be a disabling hit not a kill.

But just to add a little more icing on top of the Chinese bad day, Japan gets to shoot first. So those 20 squads get annihilated along with half of the 80 squads that are sitting around doing nothing, and China has nothing to shoot back with in its own fire phase.

Whether combats are sequential or not, Chinese crap equipment items combined with all the crap leaders and units stats means even if Japan doesn’t shoot first China can’t do much when it shoots. You’ll never see Japan lose 40,000 troops in an assault on Changsha as they did historically.

AE simply has it wrong in China, they need to be able to dish out at least some meaningful damage to Japan when they are on defense. Otherwise it won’t matter if they reduce the effects of artillery fire.

In General I think things were close to correct in CHS. Chinese units preformed well enough to hold a location, but it took immense efforts to even try to mount an offensive with them, let alone a successful one.

Jim

With Game:

If Japan is aggresive in China.. then japan burns supplies etc in china and has less for other areas...also the Reinf of troops would suck away afv, etc that would go to
other areas.

So a japan player attacking alot in China hurts things elsewhere.

Same could be said for an allied player... through allied player really cant that easy fight.. with WITP it was easier I think.. allied is more on defense and best sitting and defending the key points.

It should be that way but there is very little difference in teh supply China draws if on the offensive or just sits there , the extra supply is mainly air craft

Did we sort out the issue that the Chinese replacement rate is like 1% of Japans ?

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

What Budman said.

Based on my military service and what I have read about history of WW II, fortifications reduce effect of artillery drastically indeed.

So, basically even lvl 1 fortification in game (basically individual foxholes) should drop casualties to 1/10 compared to non-fortified unit. This is for bombardment only.

100% Agree!!!!
What is the delay in fixing this glaring problem? I was surpriesd it was not at least tweaked in our most recent patch or did I miss something?

ORIGINAL: ETF

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

What Budman said.

Based on my military service and what I have read about history of WW II, fortifications reduce effect of artillery drastically indeed.

So, basically even lvl 1 fortification in game (basically individual foxholes) should drop casualties to 1/10 compared to non-fortified unit. This is for bombardment only.

100% Agree!!!!
What is the delay in fixing this glaring problem? I was surpriesd it was not at least tweaked in our most recent patch or did I miss something?

Check out the new hotfix, released a couple days ago. It addressed this problem.

ORIGINAL: bklooste

Did we sort out the issue that the Chinese replacement rate is like 1% of Japans ?

The Chinese replacement rate is the same (200). There's an easy fix, tho - just use the editor to change the rate.

ORIGINAL: ckammp

ORIGINAL: ETF

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

What Budman said.

Based on my military service and what I have read about history of WW II, fortifications reduce effect of artillery drastically indeed.

So, basically even lvl 1 fortification in game (basically individual foxholes) should drop casualties to 1/10 compared to non-fortified unit. This is for bombardment only.

100% Agree!!!!
What is the delay in fixing this glaring problem? I was surpriesd it was not at least tweaked in our most recent patch or did I miss something?

Check out the new hotfix, released a couple days ago. It addressed this problem.

Wow thanks now I just have to look for it hmmmm. Search no go......

Gents,
 
As noted, the Hot Fix seems to have satisfactorily toned down heavy bombardments, at least for troops behind fortifications.  But a recent bombardment against troops in the open had pretty drastic losses, so I wonder about the overall affect of artillery. 
 
After installing the Hot Fix, Miller has employed massed Japanese artillery against strongly fortified Chinese positions.  The losses have been reasonable with troops behind four to six forts suffering roughly 200 casualties a day.  To me, this is solid evidence that the affect of artillery against entrenched troops is within reason.
 
We just had our first post-Hot Fix experience with concentrated artillery against unintrencehed troops.  A strong Allied army (2500 AV) advanced from Cox's Bazaar to Akyab, where 1900 Japanese AV are posted.  Both sides have about six artillery units:  the Japanese are the usual "strong" units (mortars, medium FA, etc.) while the Allies are mostly the weaker "Mountain Artillery" type.  The Allies bombarded on consecutive days with miserable results the first day (the Allies suffered 400 casualties while inflicting just 100 on the first day).  On days three and four, the Japanese bombarded.  On one of those two days the Allies suffered 1000 casualties (the actual number of squads and guns lost was relatively high, too).
 
It may be that these results are an anomoly - that the Allies just had a particularly bad day - or it may be that unintrneched troops are destined to take high casualties from artillery.  It is also possible that the increased supply usage by artillery will dissuade sustained bombardments like this one.
 
I'll continue to post here as we have additional data come in during the game, but if this early data is accurate and representative of what is to be expected, I'd say that atillery is still a little too potent.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Gents,

As noted, the Hot Fix seems to have satisfactorily toned down heavy bombardments, at least for troops behind fortifications.  But a recent bombardment against troops in the open had pretty drastic losses, so I wonder about the overall affect of artillery. 

After installing the Hot Fix, Miller has employed massed Japanese artillery against strongly fortified Chinese positions.  The losses have been reasonable with troops behind four to six forts suffering roughly 200 casualties a day.  To me, this is solid evidence that the affect of artillery against entrenched troops is within reason.

We just had our first post-Hot Fix experience with concentrated artillery against unintrencehed troops.  A strong Allied army (2500 AV) advanced from Cox's Bazaar to Akyab, where 1900 Japanese AV are posted.  Both sides have about six artillery units:  the Japanese are the usual "strong" units (mortars, medium FA, etc.) while the Allies are mostly the weaker "Mountain Artillery" type.  The Allies bombarded on consecutive days with miserable results the first day (the Allies suffered 400 casualties while inflicting just 100 on the first day).  On days three and four, the Japanese bombarded.  On one of those two days the Allies suffered 1000 casualties (the actual number of squads and guns lost was relatively high, too).

It may be that these results are an anomoly - that the Allies just had a particularly bad day - or it may be that unintrneched troops are destined to take high casualties from artillery.  It is also possible that the increased supply usage by artillery will dissuade sustained bombardments like this one.

I'll continue to post here as we have additional data come in during the game, but if this early data is accurate and representative of what is to be expected, I'd say that atillery is still a little too potent.

NO CRIMGUY OR USSHENRICO>>>


I'll have something meaningful to add to this discussion in the near term, as I am investing Bataan and Singapore with large numbers of supporting independent artillery battalions and regiments and will also be attacking Chengchow with a massive IJA assault, including at least 8 independent artillery units. The Chenchow operation is nearly the same assault as I ran with my other PBEM opponent prepatch II (and hotfix), so it ought to be an approximate apples to apples conversation.

I would expect (from other much more limited examples) that artillery damage is between one half and one third as effective prepatch / hotfix, but let's see what the data say.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Gents,

As noted, the Hot Fix seems to have satisfactorily toned down heavy bombardments, at least for troops behind fortifications.  But a recent bombardment against troops in the open had pretty drastic losses, so I wonder about the overall affect of artillery. 

After installing the Hot Fix, Miller has employed massed Japanese artillery against strongly fortified Chinese positions.  The losses have been reasonable with troops behind four to six forts suffering roughly 200 casualties a day.  To me, this is solid evidence that the affect of artillery against entrenched troops is within reason.

We just had our first post-Hot Fix experience with concentrated artillery against unintrencehed troops.  A strong Allied army (2500 AV) advanced from Cox's Bazaar to Akyab, where 1900 Japanese AV are posted.  Both sides have about six artillery units:  the Japanese are the usual "strong" units (mortars, medium FA, etc.) while the Allies are mostly the weaker "Mountain Artillery" type.  The Allies bombarded on consecutive days with miserable results the first day (the Allies suffered 400 casualties while inflicting just 100 on the first day).  On days three and four, the Japanese bombarded.  On one of those two days the Allies suffered 1000 casualties (the actual number of squads and guns lost was relatively high, too).

It may be that these results are an anomoly - that the Allies just had a particularly bad day - or it may be that unintrneched troops are destined to take high casualties from artillery.  It is also possible that the increased supply usage by artillery will dissuade sustained bombardments like this one.

I'll continue to post here as we have additional data come in during the game, but if this early data is accurate and representative of what is to be expected, I'd say that atillery is still a little too potent.

Th only alteration was for terrain.forts , if you fight in the open its unchanged AFAIK. I wish they would just reduce all Artillary so the heavy arty US divisions become useless [:D]

btw we still havent sorted out why the Chinese replacement rate is about 1% of Japan.

Exactly. If you fight in open terrain and no forts you can expect to get plastered.

ORIGINAL: bklooste

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Gents,

As noted, the Hot Fix seems to have satisfactorily toned down heavy bombardments, at least for troops behind fortifications.  But a recent bombardment against troops in the open had pretty drastic losses, so I wonder about the overall affect of artillery. 

After installing the Hot Fix, Miller has employed massed Japanese artillery against strongly fortified Chinese positions.  The losses have been reasonable with troops behind four to six forts suffering roughly 200 casualties a day.  To me, this is solid evidence that the affect of artillery against entrenched troops is within reason.

We just had our first post-Hot Fix experience with concentrated artillery against unintrencehed troops.  A strong Allied army (2500 AV) advanced from Cox's Bazaar to Akyab, where 1900 Japanese AV are posted.  Both sides have about six artillery units:  the Japanese are the usual "strong" units (mortars, medium FA, etc.) while the Allies are mostly the weaker "Mountain Artillery" type.  The Allies bombarded on consecutive days with miserable results the first day (the Allies suffered 400 casualties while inflicting just 100 on the first day).  On days three and four, the Japanese bombarded.  On one of those two days the Allies suffered 1000 casualties (the actual number of squads and guns lost was relatively high, too).

It may be that these results are an anomoly - that the Allies just had a particularly bad day - or it may be that unintrneched troops are destined to take high casualties from artillery.  It is also possible that the increased supply usage by artillery will dissuade sustained bombardments like this one.

I'll continue to post here as we have additional data come in during the game, but if this early data is accurate and representative of what is to be expected, I'd say that atillery is still a little too potent.

Th only alteration was for terrain.forts , if you fight in the open its unchanged AFAIK. I wish they would just reduce all Artillary so the heavy arty US divisions become useless [:D]

btw we still havent sorted out why the Chinese replacement rate is about 1% of Japan.