Matrix Games Forums

Type 89 in IJA raiding (para) regements, yes they had them page 8 in Taki's book, I missed it when I was looking the other night.

ORIGINAL: Brady

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

What does BAR stand for? I'm guessing Browning Automatic Rifle?

BAR- Because its an American Rifle, thats why it has a higher Soft atack value.

[:-] . . .

[;)]

BULLSHIT

<Edited to remove various further points on same theme>

I was land team lead - I agreed and reviewed analysis - you dont like it the editor is there for your own persoanl fanboi version

See ya

Andy

ORIGINAL: Brady

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

What does BAR stand for? I'm guessing Browning Automatic Rifle?

BAR- Because its an American Rifle, thats why it has a higher Soft atack value.

I was kidding, mostly[:)]

ORIGINAL: Brady
Type 89- SNLF paras used them that I am shure of, as for the IJA Para's I am not 100% certain, nead to look a bit more.

Type 97 20 mm AT rifle, I have not sean any evidance to sugest the SNLF paras used it.

That seems to be main difference in their equipment (and game statistics).

Then in 42 (late) you see the IJA and the SNLF get AT rifle gernades in small numbers this only marginaly increases their abaitys to atack enemy armor, but does increase the tools they have on hand.

49000 is NOT small number. Enough to issue ONE to every squad.
And you missing the point, that it allows to engage enemy armor at range 100+ meters. The ONLY other such weapon, would be AT Rifle.

In 1943 we see the Type 3 arive then the Lunge mine in 1944 these have much better penatrtion values so in 43/44 we should see squad Hard values go up.

Seems like, in game terms, that would have to be somehow incorporated into AV.

In a nut shell then why does the US at games start squad get a 15 and the Japanese get a 5

In WITP US, and Commonwealth had 15 AT strength, and Japan had 5. Nobody changed that. Now, when you look closer, it is serious inconsistency, but nobody cared to look closer.

ORIGINAL: JWE
AT grenades, AT mines, flamethrowers, bangalores, C-4 blocks, yadda yadda, are NOT modeled in the hard/soft firepower of squad capability.

Post #6 in this topic:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse
To no-one's surprise, the Americans have the most lavishly equipped infantry. And, by late in the war, a US Marine division had enough bazookas, flamethrowers and sachtel charges to issue one of each to every squad. The Army had only half as many flamethrowers and sachtel charges per division, but made up for it with recoilless rifles that began arriving in quantity in 1945. None of these weapons show as separate devices in-game, they are all baked into the squad's hard and soft ratings.

If you wish, I can provide a very grainy set of anti-armor statistics, calculated in accord with the game model parameters.

Great. Tell me how you calculated Type 90 75 mm Field Gun AT number. It is 7.4 calibres longer, than its predecessor.

ORIGINAL: herwin

Is it to model relative target acquisition capability? In CityFight, infantry was modelled as mostly target acquisition assets and AT guns/missiles as mostly target engagement assets.

I would say it is standard Grigsby model. Every non-disabled device can shoot at enemy. So more devices=more target acquisition. And they use their own statistics (so squads are generally wasting their time shooting at tanks). Now, when targeted device is already disabled, there could some interesting things happen.

ORIGINAL: ilovestrategy

What does BAR stand for? I'm guessing Browning Automatic Rifle?

Yup, used abbreviations:
BAR - US Browning Automatic Rifle
LMG - Light Machine Gun
HMG - Heavy Machine Gun
SMG - SubMachine Gun
GD - Japan Grenade Discharger. 50mm "knee" mortar

49000 is NOT small number. Enough to issue ONE to every squad.
And you missing the point, that it allows to engage enemy armor at range 100+ meters. The ONLY other such weapon, would be AT Rifle

Not entirely, I dismised the larger engagement envelop primarly because hand gernads aparently give a squad a hard atack of 5, several early war squads on both sides of the fence are so rated (mostly CW squads and the Japanese).

So having a tool that was desigend to atack tanks with would suposedly alow for a much haigher value in your MOD.

ORIGINAL: inqistor

ORIGINAL: herwin

Is it to model relative target acquisition capability? In CityFight, infantry was modelled as mostly target acquisition assets and AT guns/missiles as mostly target engagement assets.

I would say it is standard Grigsby model. Every non-disabled device can shoot at enemy. So more devices=more target acquisition. And they use their own statistics (so squads are generally wasting their time shooting at tanks). Now, when targeted device is already disabled, there could some interesting things happen.

Does Grigsby use a glimpse model, a continuous acquisition model, or something like ACQUIRE incorporating the contrast of the target and its cross-sectional area? I'm most comfortable with a cross between the first and the third--the advantage of modelling active sonar is that it's clearly a glimpse model. That's what I used in my PhD thesis.

ORIGINAL: herwin
Does Grigsby use a glimpse model, a continuous acquisition model, or something like ACQUIRE incorporating the contrast of the target and its cross-sectional area?

I do not think I have seen specific procedure of combat, in any of his game manuals. In WITP loses went mainly to squads, but artillery tended to get lots of disablements (especially mortars), while support squads got least hits. So it seems there is some sort of rank, probably according to range of target device. Maybe "load cost" also increases chance to become target, but here I can only guess.

ORIGINAL: Brady
I dismised the larger engagement envelop primarly because hand gernads aparently give a squad a hard atack of 5, several early war squads on both sides of the fence are so rated (mostly CW squads and the Japanese).

But remember, that now Japan have also hollow-charge AT Rifle Grenades. Those have far BETTER penetration, than 20mm AT Rifle.

So, lets sum up. Squads have some extra men from HQs, so in game they are slightly larger:
H - Hard/AT attack, S Soft attack, W - weight
(A) Device 709: strenghtened IJA squad (Type A) 19 men, 1 LMG, 4/3 GD, 18 Rifles H5 S22 W19
(B) Device 707 standard IJA squad (Type B) 17 men, 1 LMG, 1 GD, 16 Rifles H5 S20 W17

Most IJA Divisions have only B type squads, but some use A type, with 2 AT Rifles in company.
AT Rifle have 10-12 men/per Rifle. It is semi-automatic, 20mm. 2/9 (2 Rifles for 3 platoons of 3 squads) * 10 men = 2 extra men for squads
Weapon could penetrate 29mm
Type A squad, with AT Rifle: H (29*2/9=6 + 5 of original AT strength) 11+ S23-24 W21
SNLF squad: similar to Type A, but with additional LMG. Probably also at least one Spigot Launcher. Could have some SMGs.
H5 S(LMG is worth 9, Spigot maybe 1, lets say 1 SMG)33 W19
IJA Para: Identical to IJA squad with AT Rifle, but probably had some SMGs (lets say 1), maybe also flamethrowers H11+ S25 W21
IJN Para: Identical to Type A squad. No data of using AT Rifle. Maybe some SMGs (lets say 1), maybe Spigot Launcher, maybe flamethrowers. H5 S26 W19

At 9/42 there should be enough Rifle Grenade Launchers, with AT grenades available to upgrade:
SNLF squad: H10+ S(maybe extra SMG?)36
Both Para squads transform into one unified:
Raider Squad H(AT Rifle + AT Grenades from Rifle Grenade Launcher)16+ S(number of SMGs increase in 1944 - it will be 5 per squad, but I do not see another upgrade for Paras, so it will be 5 SMGs NOW)34 W21

In 1943 there should be Type 3 AT grenade, in theory not-included in Hard Attack, but somewhere from that year, there should be rearming of most squads in Pacific, and Burma, with AT Rifles, and Rifle Grenade Launchers.
1943: IJA squad H16+ S25 W21

Still, there are Japan Bazookas (3500 pieces), which were supposed to be used during invasion of HI, new version of Type 100 SMG, and last batch of troops for Okinawa were armed with semi-automatic Rifles.

I could remove this ONE SMG in most cases, that will lower some Soft Attacks by 2-3 points. On the other way,
Scenario 2 is supposed to represent better prepared Japan, so probably even more SMGs, and maybe even more AT Rifles.
Downfall Scenario - this is part about HI invasion. So all those Bazookas should be incorporated into squads.

Thanks for the response. Why I was asking is that a big reason WWII weapons fell dramatically short of their proving ground performance in combat was that the target acquisition process was a lot more important than raw firepower. FireFight was contracted for by the US Army, and the customer was most upset that real line of sight limitations in the game meant most anti-armour engagements occurred at 500 meters or less. So JFD cleared the underbrush to make the customer happy. CityFight then brought the trees and shrubs back, making engagement ranges more realistic.

AT Rifle Gernades- My understanding is that the US and Japanese both suffered from ease of aplication with these weapons, in short it was hard to get a good angle hit with them in a favorable place on the tank so both suffered in actual use. They did prove usefull aganst hard points like bunkers though.

Infentry anti tank weapons imo should be apiled under the hard atack value as that was their primary aplication, they were used for other things though, atacks aganst soft targets. Japan started with the Type 99 Anti tank device capable of defeating 2cm of armor, arguably they should have at least a 15 H from the start of the war, for the IJA and the SNLF as both used this device, widely-

I dont think it should increase though till posably 43/44, it could be argued that the AT rifle having a higher penatration value and the fact that the Type 99 were often employed in pairs yeilding a 3cm penatration value could bring this up to a practle conservative value of 20 H from wars start.

In 43/44 the Type 3 and the Lunge mine, pluss other devices including sucide (other than lunge) could rase this to 25 or even 30 H.
 
 One shocking atration figure I have sean for late war Battles like Iwo Jima and Okinawa is that US tank units suffered over 100% atration in many cases from a variety of sources, including Infentry deleaved weapons.

For me, if the ground forces are in contact their in contact in game terms and weapons ranges become mute to an extent, their already caluclated into the base efects ratings for each weapon I belave, so a longer range weapon will have a higher value than a shorter range weapon because it has the potential to deleaver more fire, even though the weight of that fire might be less, I dont know this for certain but its my asumption. ( I also dont nescessarly agree with that if it is so.)
.........

Flame throwers are represented in game I belave despite the seaming contradiction above by IJA enginears in game, their is it would seam a lack of them in the SNLF units, for moding it might be easer to just include a few IJA Enginear untis(squads) into a SNLF unit to represent the absent Flamethrowers and demo charges they had.

ORIGINAL: herwin

Thanks for the response. Why I was asking is that a big reason WWII weapons fell dramatically short of their proving ground performance in combat was that the target acquisition process was a lot more important than raw firepower.

I would say it was because of the enemy, who was unaccounted in theoretical testing [;)]
For example Bazooka could be good AT weapon, if crew would survive long enough, to get Tank in 150m range. In open terrain - impossible.

FireFight was contracted for by the US Army, and the customer was most upset that real line of sight limitations in the game meant most anti-armour engagements occurred at 500 meters or less. So JFD cleared the underbrush to make the customer happy. CityFight then brought the trees and shrubs back, making engagement ranges more realistic.

Realistic in theoretical sense, because enemy generally refuse to play-it-American-way. In Iraq most combat was below 250m, so all range of tank guns, and artillery, were unnecessary. When terrain become too rough for tanks, in Afghanistan, enemy began fighting at much longer distances, and suddenly infantry tactics became obsolete.

ORIGINAL: Brady
AT Rifle Gernades- My understanding is that the US and Japanese both suffered from ease of aplication with these weapons, in short it was hard to get a good angle hit with them in a favorable place on the tank so both suffered in actual use. They did prove usefull aganst hard points like bunkers though.

Spigot Launcher is hard to operate, and I think, M9 had to be fired from Rifle on ground, while Type 100: The grenade traveled 30m to 100m and hit a vehicle-size target quite easily. You could fire this from shoulder.

Infentry anti tank weapons imo should be apiled under the hard atack value as that was their primary aplication, they were used for other things though, atacks aganst soft targets. Japan started with the Type 99 Anti tank device capable of defeating 2cm of armor, arguably they should have at least a 15 H from the start of the war, for the IJA and the SNLF as both used this device, widely-

I would say, you can easily find similar devices in Allied hands, so that would equate even for both sides.

One shocking atration figure I have sean for late war Battles like Iwo Jima and Okinawa is that US tank units suffered over 100% atration in many cases from a variety of sources, including Infentry deleaved weapons.

Oh yeah, late war tank loses seems too low in game. Increasing AT attack by small value, should result in much more disablements, but only slightly more kills. Unless, of course, Allies do not upgrade their tanks, in which case they should seriously suffer.

For me, if the ground forces are in contact their in contact in game terms and weapons ranges become mute to an extent, their already caluclated into the base efects ratings for each weapon I belave, so a longer range weapon will have a higher value than a shorter range weapon because it has the potential to deleaver more fire, even though the weight of that fire might be less,

You must remember about in-game combat model. First there is firefight, in which units get disabled/killed, and do not count in final AV calculation. Tank destroyed by magnetic mine, still already made its close-assault.

Flame throwers are represented in game I belave despite the seaming contradiction above by IJA enginears in game, their is it would seam a lack of them in the SNLF units, for moding it might be easer to just include a few IJA Enginear untis(squads) into a SNLF unit to represent the absent Flamethrowers and demo charges they had.

Forget it. There is, like, 100 different SNLF units, I am not going to change any TOEs. Adding dew extra devices is 15 minutes of work. Changing TOEs require lots of reverse-engineering.

Anyway, I made an error:
IJA Paras had ONE AT Rifle per section, not 2 per company, with 7 men crews
So it should have H34+ S28+ W21

And, as a consequence, modified:
Raider Squad H39+ S37 W22

An error again. According to this chart, there is SIX men in Para Rifle Squad, not FIVE, so there should be SIX SMGs, and another +2 Soft Attack.

I have watched another Para training movie, officers seems to run only with Katanas after jump(4:06), so most probably it was them, who was armed with SMGs later.

Time for last puzzle piece: extra company for 7th Yokosuka, which had 33(!) GDs, the only explanation I see, is that it was also partly GD reinforcements for older, 1st Company:
First, lets subtract basic 3 strenghtened GD squads, for 3 new platoons. That would be 3*4 GDs=12. Leaves us with 33-12=21.
That would divide on 3 platoons: 21/3=7 How to split 7 GDs on 3 squads? That would be ONE extra GD squad, and ONE extra strenghtened GD squad. I doubt they were mixed.
So, lets subtract 6 GDs, for 6 old squads. 21-6=15. 15 is EXACTLY number of squads in new organization (6 old + 9 new). That would still mix strenghtened, and normal GD squads. Maybe those are not only GDs, but also Rifle Grenade Launchers? In which case, it would indicate, that 2 such devices were added to every old squad, and one to every new squad.
Now, lets assume, that NEW platoons have TWO strenghtened GD squads. That would take 12*2=24 GDs, and leaves 33-24=9 GDs, which is exactly number of GDs in OLD company. Again, I do not know, how to split this 9, onto 2 platoons, but it could indicate again, either the same error, or extra GD in HQ.
Anyway, there is simple answer:
New squads had TWO times more GDs.

I made simple assumption:
if there is report, that squads were equipped in some type of weapon, but no sources, as to number of those, I simply put ONE such weapon in squad. Here is final table. Green color means this table have higher statistics, as my initial assumptions (and table), red color, otherwise. 3rd Yokosuka returned to Japan at end of October, so I have put upgrade at November. Any comments?

They should imo all start with a min Hard Atack of 15 because of the Type 99 Anti tank device , including the SNLF.

ORIGINAL: Brady
They should imo all start with a min Hard Atack of 15 because of the Type 99 Anti tank device , including the SNLF.

Type 99 Magnetic Anti-Tank Grenade, is pretty similar to Anti-Tank No. 74 Grenade. So again, Commonwealth have comparable device, and should be better in AT strength, that Japan. On the other hand, I can not see anything similar in early US equipment.
Anyway, that is out of Design Scope, as they can be used only below 30m. Now, if you would like to include TOP-NOTCH-NIPPONESE-ROBOTTO we could begin to wonder...
Anyway, all extra AT Devices should be also included in Cavalry, and Mechanized squads. I think I will have to look at them also.


IN-GAME consequences of modification:
IJA squads becomes only 1-2 points stronger, than earlier TYPE A, but comparing it with TYPE B it is 25% stronger, but also larger. That would allow Japan remain more competitive in 1943, and increase needed transport capacity, by 5-7%. I do not know how supply is counted, but consumption probably will also increase by 5-7%. As an additional bonus, Japan reported loses should also increase by around 15%.
Allied tank loses should remain comparatively low, if they will use REAL, not light tanks. But I am estimating disablements in that area should increase substantially.
All upgrades, around beginning of 1943 should help, with Japan overflow of Armament Points in the same timeframe.
Japan Paras are strong, and large. They should have no problem with direct assault on lone Base Force. Allies should find all those independent battalions highly useful. However I do not think Japan Para unit can stand against single Infantry Brigade, or medium Tank unit.
SNLFs are very strong, however, it seems, that AE in fact models SNLF units based on historical number of LMGs, not actual number of squads. So to counter that, I would have to divide SNLF squads in half-squads. I would give every HALF an SMG, so it will have 36 Soft Attack, and after dividing:
H5+ S18 W10
That would mean, that basic SNLF squad is weaker, but also far smaller. Does it increase loses (if they are applied based on device size)? Probably it will also decrease supply usage, and of course, needed transport capacity. What is most important, SNLF becomes preferred small island garrison, as it can pack more squads on the same island size.
After upgrade:
H10+ S22 W11
Both, slightly stronger, as current SNLF squad, and still smaller. Even better for island defence.

So, time for POLL:
What should be the date for IJA squad upgrade? Allies have first upgrade in the middle of 1942, and another:
Canada, USA 1/43
Commonwealth 2/43
India 3/43
So, should Japan lead (January), with British slightly behind, which will help Japan in Burma, or should Japan lag behind (at March+), or should it really be laaaate (like after half of the year)?

ORIGINAL: inqistor

So, time for POLL:
What should be the date for IJA squad upgrade? Allies have first upgrade in the middle of 1942, and another:

The "12th of Never" sounds about right. [8|]

Go with your best judgement.

Brad'ster....is this soft attack thingy why you refuse to cross the river in our game? I am getting bored.

[:)]

Motorized squad in this chart is pretty simple. Again, organization of strenghtened platoon (TYPE A). But there is only 50 men in platoon, so dividing it at squads gives 50/3=16.5, so less, that 19 of Device 709. It seems subtracting 2 men, and their 2 Rifles, and in this way, 2*.5 Soft attack will hit the spot:
IJA Motorized squad:
H5 S21 W17
Now, should it upgrade? What unit exactly uses it? It seems they are only present in Division recon units. I do not see any indication of them using AT Rifles.


And finally... Cavalry squad. Here are some problems. There are Independent Cavalry units, which are pure horse borne. And there are Cavalry, as parts of Division recon. They have at least 2 types of organization, and sometimes are even mixed with motorized troops. Anyway, it seems, that in Division they are always armed with AT Rifles.

There are 6 AT Rifles for 2 Companies.
Company have 12 squads, and 6 GDs, so 1/2 GD per squad, and 3/12 AT Rifle per squad.
Number of men:
35/3=11+ per squad
26/6=4+ per GD
1/2 of GD will take 2 men, so Cavalry squad will have 13-14 men. So 6-7 Soft Attack from Rifles, 9 from LMG, and 1/2 GD.
H5 S18 W14
This is pretty close to in-game H5 S19 W16, it seems squad "weight" do not include horses, but in case of Japan any additional weight also increase Armament cost, and surely horses were pretty easy to "produce".
Now, adding AT Rifle.
10 men * 3/12 = 2.5
29mm * 3/12 = 7+
H12+ S20 W16

Another organization, left upper-part:
3 squads in platoon, and 2 GDs in GD platoon, so 2/3 GD per platoon.
4 AT Rifles for 3 companies, so 4/27 AT Rifle per squad.
29mm * 4/27 = 4
H9+ S20 W16
It seems both types can have the same statistics. Difference will be only in virtual part of AT strength.

And REALLY finally, Independent Cavalry:
It seems to posses similar organization, to Divisional, but lacks of AT Rifles, and have much bigger platoons (50 men).
50/3=16+
That would mean:
H5 S19 W17

Again, pretty close to earlier calculations, with exception of Hard Attack. AT Rifle crew seems to be enough to fill number of men to common 16-17, and since I do not want to mess with TOEs, and t is unlikely, Independent Cavalry will face Chinese Armour, I will go, with first estimation.

Upgrades:
Motorized squad should be divided according to truck-load. Actually, to be in line with western pattern, it also should get additional LMG, but anyway, if I will give every "truck" Rifle Grenade Launcher:
IJA Motorized squad 1/43:
H10 S22-23 W17

Cavalry squad 1/43, with ONE Rifle Grenade Launcher:
H16+ S21 W16
Probably too small upgrade, to justify expending of Armament Points.


Allies have several upgrades for their Combat Engineers, I would also like to make the same for Japan, introducing of SHAPED CHARGE should surely increase Hard Attack, but I do not see any new device, which could be added for increased Soft Attack. Even virtually adding few Rifle Grenade Launchers do not increase Soft Attack enough to justify squad upgrade. Allies generally jump by 7 points, Japan could maybe by 3. Any ideas?

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Brad'ster....is this soft attack thingy why you refuse to cross the river in our game? I am getting bored.

[:)]

O- I am coming, its not going to go well, I think, but I am coming[:)]

The soft atack thing is not such a big deal as the Hard atack thing imo for the bulk of the Japanese squads.

Many I think are being short changed on the Soft atack, but not by much (2-3 points), SNLF are clearly being short changed though (mucho).

Hard atack their is a distinct isue their, not as dramatic a one as some imo may think but clearly an isue. (conservatively 15 from day one and it should go to at least 20 by mid war for all Japanese squads).

Well, every point of Soft Attack, will increase Allied loses by 2-4%, so it will slower overall game tempo, which is too fast currently.
Just remember, that most of IJA forces, start war without AT Rifles. I also think, that Hard Attack should be at least 20, for 1943 upgrade, but Commonwealth had more toys, than Japan in 1941, so if Japan gets 15, Commonwealth should get even more, and they have like SIX nations! It would be simpler to lower initial US statistics, and give Japan something in the middle.