Matrix Games Forums

CVE Taiyo survives the turn and disbands in port, but is in no man's land between Formosa and Luzon. I'll improve my air search to show the best option for egress to a repair facility.

China was quiet with just bombings on the menu. A deliberate attack is ordered to try and clear the hex directly southwest of Chungking. Three divisions and a tank regiment are tasked with this operation. Another deliberate attack by two divisions and a tank regiment is ordered against the Chinese forces directly southeast of Chengtu. I think the Chinese will have pulled out before the attack, but bombing may have caused a unit or two to be left behind. However, if all of the Chinese force is still in the hex I don't expect my attack to be successful as there are nine Chinese LCU's amounting to over 90k of troops. They'll still pack a punch on defence, but I want to try and cause some losses before they reach the relative safety of Chengtu.

Production wise, another large oil tanker TF arrived in the Home Islands. Resources hit a new high while another 6k supply was banked.

China:

The attack against Chinese forces southwest of Chungking achieved 1:2 odds, but losses were fairly even to both sides. A (-) supply modifier appeared for the first time against the Chinese, so the next attack should achieve better odds (1:1 was just missed in the previous attack) and results.

The attack southeast of Chengtu didn't occur as all Chinese forces were able to withdraw prior to the assault. So Japanese forces are now ordered to invest Chengtu directly. Current Chinese defending forces amount to 12 LCU's and will shortly be reinforced by three additional, albeit, trashed units.

Near Kunming I'm going to commit another division to try and break the deadlock. I'll over stack the hex but it can't be helped.

Sub Ops:

SS Cachalot hits a mine at Tokyo on the 6th then hits another one today at Yokohama and sinks. Is it possible it was sacrificed to gain some form of recon or simply a blown destination that was never corrected? If I recall SS Cachalot is one of the submarines due to withdraw? If it was purposely sacrificed for whatever reason simply because it's due to withdraw this kind of play bugs me.

I've always felt that ships due to eventually withdraw that end up being sunk should carry a further PP penalty. There's a reason they are to be withdrawn and their loss should have some negative impact on the owning side. However, with FOW I can't confirm the identity of the submarine anyway so it could be a different one altogether. Regardless, I'll take the VP's and strike one of the buggers off the Allied OOB. Any sunk enemy submarine is a good thing!

Thoughts:

None. Just the usual movement of resources and troops.

A frustrating turn for Japan.

China:

Two deliberate attacks fail to dislodge Chinese forces in 3x defensive terrain. Despite one attack achieving 1:1 odds a division is trashed, as is another one after only getting 1:2 odds. Two failed attacks and two trashed Japanese divisions. Not a good day. AAR's follow.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 76,46 (near Chungking)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 29270 troops, 248 guns, 90 vehicles, Assault Value = 849

Defending force 35783 troops, 120 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1042

Japanese adjusted assault: 653

Allied adjusted defense: 796

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1515 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 181 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 16 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 9 disabled

Allied ground losses:
671 casualties reported
Squads: 6 destroyed, 54 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Assaulting units:
51st Division
58th Division
68th Division
15th Tank Regiment

Defending units:
49th Chinese Corps
60th Chinese Corps
27th Chinese Corps
8th Chinese Corps
9th Prov Chinese Corps

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 71,48 (near Kunming)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 23418 troops, 362 guns, 42 vehicles, Assault Value = 718

Defending force 17680 troops, 76 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 485

Japanese adjusted assault: 503

Allied adjusted defense: 337

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
2101 casualties reported
Squads: 11 destroyed, 146 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 30 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 13 disabled
Guns lost 35 (9 destroyed, 26 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
322 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 38 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

Assaulting units:
60th Division
104th Division
2nd Mortar Battalion
11th Army
23rd Army
52nd Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
2nd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
15th Ind.Medium Field Artillery Regiment
10th Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
1st Mortar Battalion
21st Mortar Battalion
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion

Defending units:
9th Chinese Corps
91st Chinese Corps
38th Group Army
3rd Heavy Mortar Regiment

Luganville:

Luganville is invaded today by the Allies and will fall next turn as I only have small support units at the base. What burns me is naval search based at Ndeni has spotted enemy TF's at both Noumea and Suva the last two days and yet completely fails to spot an invasion force. I can't react if I can't get decent intelligence. KB could have reacted if given one day of notice. Oh well.

Thoughts:

As with any dice based game, if you don't get the rolls you don't have much success.

I'm going to have to start overstacking my attacks against Chinese positions now as well. Despite no supply for the defenders if I remain within stacking limits, unlike the Chinese on defence, I simply can't get the AV necessary to counter the increase in defensive AV and the additional reduction in attacker AV in 3x defensive terrain. So much for stacking limits eliminating the need to mass force. The Chinese fight better now almost completely out of supply than they did for the first 12 months of the game. I guess throwing rocks is much more effective then using bullets. Brilliant.

China:

A mistake on my part leads to further frustration in China. Forgetting to reset my forces that achieved 1:1 odds on the 10th back to defend, they attacked again and the results are predictable. A raw AV of 564 reduced to 86 is laughable. You'd think the amount of artillery I have would contribute more to the results, like maybe causing some disruption? Bombing attacks are also contributing little to the assault results. AAR follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 71,48 (near Kunming)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 21890 troops, 354 guns, 42 vehicles, Assault Value = 564

Defending force 17382 troops, 76 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 455

Japanese adjusted assault: 86

Allied adjusted defense: 238

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1760 casualties reported
Squads: 5 destroyed, 180 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 17 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 10 disabled
Guns lost 29 (2 destroyed, 27 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
172 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 43 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 9 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Guns lost 8 (1 destroyed, 7 disabled)

Assaulting units:
60th Division
104th Division
21st Mortar Battalion
2nd Mortar Battalion
1st Mortar Battalion
11th Army
23rd Army
2nd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
15th Ind.Medium Field Artillery Regiment
52nd Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
10th Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion

Defending units:
9th Chinese Corps
91st Chinese Corps
38th Group Army
3rd Heavy Mortar Regiment

I'm going to have to withdraw a division for recuperation, but a fresh division will arrive next turn and then I'll attack again. The adjusted AV of the Chinese was quite low, if the artillery and bombing attacks can somehow disrupt the Chinese maybe another attack will succeed. If it fails I'll be stalled on the road to Kunming indefinitely. Any hope of conquering China under these conditions will be a pipe dream if Chinese resistance is this tough at this stage of the campaign. Considering I'm most likely going to face large overstacked hexes all the way to the Burmese border it's not likely to improve. Epic fail by not moving directly from Burma to capture the mountain bases at game start.

Luganville:

Somehow I'm not wiped out in the first assault, perhaps tomorrow. AAR follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Luganville (120,150)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 10346 troops, 120 guns, 116 vehicles, Assault Value = 381

Defending force 1696 troops, 18 guns, 15 vehicles, Assault Value = 11

Allied adjusted assault: 59

Japanese adjusted defense: 15

Allied assault odds: 3 to 1 (fort level 4)

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 3

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker: leaders(-), fatigue(-)

Japanese ground losses:
168 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 21 (6 destroyed, 15 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
31 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
24th (Sep) Infantry Regiment
53rd (Sep) Infantry Regiment
14th NZ Brigade

Defending units:
40th Field AA Battalion
17th JNAF AF Unit
37th Const Co
30th JNAF AF Unit

Production:

Aircraft Ki-44-IIc Tojo advances R&D to 2/44.

CL Agano arrives at Nagasaki/Sasebo

Finally, a fully repaired R&D factory 30(0) for the N1K1 George! Let the advancement begin.

Thoughts:

None.

Bad day.

Nov. 12/42:

China:

I've finally begun to wipe out the isolated pocket of Chinese troops near Anking. An Army HQ was destroyed on the 12th leaving five corps and two more HQ's to go.

Luganville:

Japanese resistance ends on Luganville. As you can see, Jocke lands with no support troops in the first wave once again, leaving the base incapable of providing CAP until follow up TF's arrive. For future invasions, if I don't react to the initial landings there's a good chance a delayed response could catch follow up support TF's with either KB or a strong surface TF. AAR follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Luganville (120,150)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 10324 troops, 120 guns, 116 vehicles, Assault Value = 379

Defending force 1518 troops, 12 guns, 15 vehicles, Assault Value = 5

Allied adjusted assault: 146

Japanese adjusted defense: 9

Allied assault odds: 16 to 1 (fort level 3)

Allied forces CAPTURE Luganville !!!

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

Japanese ground losses:
309 casualties reported
Squads: 6 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 10 destroyed, 15 disabled
Engineers: 12 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 12 (12 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Vehicles lost 12 (10 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
15 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
24th (Sep) Infantry Regiment
53rd (Sep) Infantry Regiment
14th NZ Brigade

Defending units:
40th Field AA Battalion
37th Const Co
17th JNAF AF Unit
30th JNAF AF Unit

Nov. 13/42:

Sub Ops:

A rare strike!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submarine attack near Horn Island at 91,129

Japanese Ships
SS RO-64

Allied Ships
xAKL Benkoelen, Torpedo hits 1, heavy damage

China:

The reduction of the pocket is almost complete. AAR follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 87,54 (near Anking)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 24092 troops, 222 guns, 266 vehicles, Assault Value = 728

Defending force 15314 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 40

Japanese adjusted assault: 629

Allied adjusted defense: 13

Japanese assault odds: 48 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), disruption(-), fatigue(-), morale(-)
experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
31 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Vehicles lost 2 (1 destroyed, 1 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
4187 casualties reported
Squads: 58 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 340 destroyed, 20 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Units destroyed 4

Assaulting units:
40th Division
22nd Division
19th Tank Regiment
10th Tank Regiment
4th Mortar Battalion

Defending units:
100th Chinese Corps
3rd War Area
70th Chinese Corps
86th Chinese Corps
25th Group Army
28th Chinese Corps

Chengtu is held by only six weak Chinese LCU's and is easily captured for little loss. The bulk of the defenders had already left the base the previous turn. I'll take it anyway I can get it. Now to invest Chungking and continue to bludgeon my way through the mountains. AAR follows:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Chengtu (75,41)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 48863 troops, 449 guns, 310 vehicles, Assault Value = 2099

Defending force 19498 troops, 96 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 496

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 0

Japanese adjusted assault: 1441

Allied adjusted defense: 327

Japanese assault odds: 4 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Chengtu !!!

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
I-15-III: 4 destroyed
I-16-III: 4 destroyed
Hawk 75M: 2 destroyed

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

Japanese ground losses:
673 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 114 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 14 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 17 disabled

Allied ground losses:
4289 casualties reported
Squads: 116 destroyed, 194 disabled
Non Combat: 218 destroyed, 105 disabled
Engineers: 33 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 41 (29 destroyed, 12 disabled)
Units retreated 6

Assaulting units:
15th Division
39th Division
116th Division
12th Tank Regiment
36th Division
69th Division
2nd Hvy.Artillery Regiment
51st Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
14th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
13th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion

Defending units:
24th Chinese Corps
43rd Chinese Corps
1st Chinese Base Force
2nd War Area
3rd Chinese Base Force
7th Chinese Base Force

Thoughts:

I'll continue to be grateful for taking supply generating bases in China for little cost, but I also know these gains are offset by the tough slog through the mountains. I'm trying another overstacked attack near Kunming to see if I can finally break the deadlock. I'm not optimistic, but Chinese modified AV has been dropping so at least there's a chance to get better odds after adding a fresh division to the attack.

China:

All the action was here today, but that's nothing new. A good day for Japanese ground forces as numerous Chinese forces were defeated throughout the theatre. AAR's follow:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 79,45 (near Patung)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 6888 troops, 50 guns, 114 vehicles, Assault Value = 280

Defending force 3242 troops, 41 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 79

Japanese adjusted assault: 166

Allied adjusted defense: 3

Japanese assault odds: 55 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(+), disruption(-), experience(-)
supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
25 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
1224 casualties reported
Squads: 58 destroyed, 15 disabled
Non Combat: 44 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 11 (8 destroyed, 3 disabled)
Units retreated 1

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
3rd Tank Regiment
1st Ind.Mixed Brigade

Defending units:
1st Chinese Cavalry Corps

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 87,54 (near Anking)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 24095 troops, 222 guns, 265 vehicles, Assault Value = 730

Defending force 10918 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 4

Japanese adjusted assault: 334

Allied adjusted defense: 5

Japanese assault odds: 66 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(-), disruption(-), fatigue(-)
morale(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
33 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Allied ground losses:
3901 casualties reported
Squads: 119 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 411 destroyed, 51 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Units destroyed 1

Assaulting units:
40th Division
22nd Division
19th Tank Regiment
10th Tank Regiment
4th Mortar Battalion

Defending units:
100th Chinese Corps
28th Chinese Corps
70th Chinese Corps

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 80,31 (near Sining)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 21745 troops, 193 guns, 98 vehicles, Assault Value = 763

Defending force 7894 troops, 27 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 72

Japanese adjusted assault: 391

Allied adjusted defense: 97

Japanese assault odds: 4 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
84 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Allied ground losses:
3041 casualties reported
Squads: 37 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 101 destroyed, 11 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 18 (15 destroyed, 3 disabled)
Units retreated 10

Defeated Allied Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
37th Division
26th/A Division
26th/B Division

Defending units:
36th Chinese Corps
2nd Chinese Cavalry Corps
8th Chinese Base Force
81st Chinese Corps
5th Chinese Base Force
41st Chinese Corps
8th War Area
17th Group Army
75th Chinese Corps
19th Chinese Base Force

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 71,48 (near Kunming)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 34051 troops, 485 guns, 66 vehicles, Assault Value = 916

Defending force 16990 troops, 74 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 414

Japanese adjusted assault: 409

Allied adjusted defense: 283

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
1383 casualties reported
Squads: 27 destroyed, 99 disabled
Non Combat: 5 destroyed, 23 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 6 disabled
Guns lost 23 (9 destroyed, 14 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
946 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 91 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 39 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Assaulting units:
60th Division
13th Division
104th Division
21st Mortar Battalion
11th Army
52nd Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion
23rd Army
10th Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
15th Ind.Medium Field Artillery Regiment
1st Mortar Battalion
2nd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
2nd Mortar Battalion
1st Medium Field Artillery Regiment

Defending units:
9th Chinese Corps
91st Chinese Corps
38th Group Army
3rd Heavy Mortar Regiment

The last battle is the most important one and finally some disablements are inflicted on the Chinese. However, I just don't get it. This enemy force is bombarded by air and artillery regularly and has undergone three deliberate attacks now and it's hardly been dented. The adjusted AV is dropping, but the price has been incredibly high for Japanese forces. It just shows me that lack of supply hardly compensates for the punitive modifiers that severely reduce an attackers adjusted AV in 3x terrain. The fact that I have to overstack this hex by over 15k just to get 1:1 odds shows that massing your force is still the best way to defend or attack. If you can afford the increased supply use then stacking limits can simply, and in most cases should, be ignored.

I tried to act within the stacking limits because I get what the intent is behind them, but I'm not going embrace them if it means my forces are put at a severe disadvantage because the effects of overstacking hardly affect an already out of supply enemy force in 3x defensive terrain. My prediction is the Allies will benefit from this big time in the mid/late war as they can easily supply any overstacked hex, while Japan can really only take advantage of it in China and when supply is still plentiful.

Production:

NE Turbojet engine advances R&D to 10/45.

Thoughts:

As Long as I can afford the supply cost I'm overstacking my attacks in mountainous terrain. I'd rather continue to press my advantage rather than throw it away by operating within stacking limits that simply neuter my offensive capability in 3x defensive terrain. I've earned the right to try and knock China out, but operating within stacking limits while the defender can overstack at will while out of supply and still put up a better defence than if they were in a base is ridiculous. It's taken me how many months to wipe out a completely surrounded force that had zero supply? I'm not letting that happen again. I like the idea of stacking limits, but they aren't the answer for a bad land combat model.

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

The last battle is the most important one and finally some disablements are inflicted on the Chinese. However, I just don't get it. This enemy force is bombarded by air and artillery regularly and has undergone three deliberate attacks now and it's hardly been dented.

I've mentioned this before, but I can't remember if here or somewhere else. Anyway, I don't use arty attacks in China. Ever. The problem is that it increases the Exp of the CHI forces faster than it creates disablements. My experience is that each arty attack can add 3 - 8 EXP to each unit until they get to about 50 EXP and then they increase slower. Air bombardments don't increase the EXP nearly as much, often no increase.

YMMV, use as you see fit. [;)]

The fact that I have to overstack this hex by over 15k just to get 1:1 odds shows that massing your force is still the best way to defend or attack.

It is the best way to launch a frontal attack because you can move the forces in just before the attack so the overstack doesn't cost much. It is less good in defense because it is a continuing cost.

This is entirely consistent with WW I style warfare where the approach for an attack was to mass far more troops than could normally be maintained and hope to break through. The defense would be to hold reserves and create a temporary overstack where the enemy attacked. The China theatre of operations was more like WW I than the mobile warfare in Europe and this seems to be accurately reflected by the use of stacking limits.

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

The last battle is the most important one and finally some disablements are inflicted on the Chinese. However, I just don't get it. This enemy force is bombarded by air and artillery regularly and has undergone three deliberate attacks now and it's hardly been dented.

I've mentioned this before, but I can't remember if here or somewhere else. Anyway, I don't use arty attacks in China. Ever. The problem is that it increases the Exp of the CHI forces faster than it creates disablements. My experience is that each arty attack can add 3 - 8 EXP to each unit until they get to about 50 EXP and then they increase slower. Air bombardments don't increase the EXP nearly as much, often no increase.

YMMV, use as you see fit. [;)]

I've been using them against the Moose in certain locations. Right now I'm bombarding him at Sian. I don't even have that much arty there, but I'm causing 400-500 casualties a day at minimum. It's helping a lot to drag down his supply and his raw AV. It's because of the open terrain. In the mountains, I don't plan to do it unless I'm trying to drag down his supply in the run up to an assault.



Lemon, can we get a screenshot of these areas in China? [:)] I've not played with stacking limits, but it would still help to "see" it after these days of combat reports. Or is it pretty much the same as the last screenshot? The mountains of SW China are probably harder to crack than even Chungking. At least in Chungking you can bomb from the air to reasonable effect.

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Anyway, I don't use arty attacks in China. Ever. The problem is that it increases the Exp of the CHI forces faster than it creates disablements. My experience is that each arty attack can add 3 - 8 EXP to each unit until they get to about 50 EXP and then they increase slower. Air bombardments don't increase the EXP nearly as much, often no increase.

Hi Pax,

I'm aware of this too, but you can see from the combat reports the Chinese are consistently suffering a (-) experience modifier so they still suck in the short term [;)]. I remember the whole discussion about the experience gain of defending units when under artillery bombardment. In this case, I'm was resorting to everything I could use in order to somehow break the deadlock. I was using artillery in a support role solely to remain within stacking limits. Now that I've reached the conclusion I have to over stack in order to offset the combat modifiers in 3x terrain and that neither air or artillery bombardment is helping, I can re-deploy the artillery for use against bases where, regardless of terrain, they perform much better and contribute to reducing supply levels for the defence.

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Anyway, I don't use arty attacks in China. Ever. The problem is that it increases the Exp of the CHI forces faster than it creates disablements. My experience is that each arty attack can add 3 - 8 EXP to each unit until they get to about 50 EXP and then they increase slower. Air bombardments don't increase the EXP nearly as much, often no increase.

Hi Pax,

I'm aware of this too, but you can see from the combat reports the Chinese are consistently suffering a (-) experience modifier so they still suck in the short term [;)]. I remember the whole discussion about the experience gain of defending units when under artillery bombardment. In this case, I'm was resorting to everything I could use in order to somehow break the deadlock. I was using artillery in a support role solely to remain within stacking limits. Now that I've reached the conclusion I have to over stack in order to offset the combat modifiers in 3x terrain and that neither air or artillery bombardment is helping, I can re-deploy the artillery for use against bases where, regardless of terrain, they perform much better and contribute to reducing supply levels for the defence.

In the SW China area you're having issues with, I haven't had any luck with arty. Just a long slog of attacks to grind the defenders (and half my attacking force) into dust. It seems to be the only way.

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Lemon, can we get a screenshot of these areas in China? [:)] I've not played with stacking limits, but it would still help to "see" it after these days of combat reports. Or is it pretty much the same as the last screenshot? The mountains of SW China are probably harder to crack than even Chungking. At least in Chungking you can bomb from the air to reasonable effect.

It's the contested hex on the map in post #1006 labeled position 6 or on the latest map the hex that is 92 miles east of Kunming. As you can see, only two Chinese Corps are holding up my entire advance which I completely understand considering the terrain. What I'm facing is the fact that if you try and maintain stacking limits when conducting an attack in 3x defensive terrain there is NO way to overcome the position except by over stacking. As Pax pointed out, artillery simply adds experience to the defender and both artillery and air bombing are next to useless as the damage and disruption are minimal.

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

What I'm facing is the fact that if you try and maintain stacking limits when conducting an attack in 3x defensive terrain there is NO way to overcome the position except by over stacking.

Joseph,

I'm pretty sure that is WAD. Maybe John will drop in to confirm. As I understand the concept behind stacking limits, it isn't to prevent you from putting 20 div's in a hex, its to prevent you from parking 20 divs in a hex. Subtle, but BIG difference. There is no way to bivouac 20 divs in a 40 mi hex, there just isn't enough real estate unless it is a built up Camp, but to launch an attack from? Sure. But you are going to have a tough time supplying those guys unless they move forward, you just haven't enough roadway to get everything they need to them.

So, do you need to overstack to attack? Heck yeah. Is it a pain to set it up, fail, have to pull everyone out, refresh, move them all back in and make the 2nd attack? Heck yeah? Why do they do that? Slow down the tempo. Seems like it is working ... [;)]

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

China:

Recon has picked up the large enemy force that has withdrawn from Chengtu and it means I have to cancel the proposed river assault. I will not be able to clear the hex prior to the 26 LCU's arriving so there's absolutely no reason to risk trashing a division. An opportunity lost, but also one gained. Chengtu is now only held by three Chinese LCU's with nine additional units available to reinforce. This will not be enough to hold the base once the majority of my forces arrive. The bulk of the Chinese may have escaped for now, but I'll gladly accept a reduced garrison at Chengtu as compensation.

I'm now facing the reality that a lot more Chinese troops are pouring into the mountainous terrain than I would have liked. It can't be helped and I realize now the fatal flaw in my China strategy was failing to close the door from Burma six months ago. What to do moving forward? I believe the proper course of action is to now capture Chengtu, Chungking and Kunming prior to dealing with the Chinese hordes in the mountains. I simply can't risk the Chinese linking up with Commonwealth forces in Burma by mid 43 and having Chungking still in Chinese hands.

To facilitate the easier capture of Chengtu and Chungking, the current isolated Chinese pockets will not be reduced prior to capture of these bases. There is little to be gained from adding to the defensive capabilities of the Chinese at this time. I expended much effort in isolating 35 enemy LCU's in order to be a non-factor in the defence of China, lets keep it that way.

Burma:

I hate Burma. I now have to reinforce the theatre to prevent the Allies from taking advantage of my failure in China.

Thoughts:

I'm expecting the air war to heat up any day, but so far Jocke continues to avoid any attacks in order to stock his pools and train pilots. I still think a move on New Guinea is imminent as there is a ton of daily recon occurring. My Achille's Heel is lack of fuel at my forward bases. I'm stocking up levels as fast as I can, but the process is much slower than anticipated. I put this down to the submarine threat and having to route away from trouble knowing that I can't prevent any torpedo attacks.

I'm trying to improve my naval search to catch a glimpse of an impending enemy naval action, but so far enemy intentions and location of their CV's remains unknown.

Yes, I think that a concerted effort in China demands a concerted effort in Burma as well. As long as the road to Burma is not totally blocked then the Allied player can march shattered Chinese units into India and rebuild them. In my game Ark successfully pushed up the Burma road and laid siege to Paoshan but never quite took it. I was able to long march a lot of broken units overland to Ledo. It took forever but I had the time. But without a drive into China from Burma the Chinese have an open ended solution and don't even need to hold any cities in China as their army can just move to India and eventually rebuild. Sooner or later they will be back. So for the Japanese player the choice is to use maximum force in an attempt to trap and wipe out the entire Chinese army by attacking with full force from Burma as well as driving from the east. However, I think the better solution is to just attack and take Kumming and then fortify The mountains along that line. The Chinese army won't have the power to move you out of Western China until the war is well decided elsewhere. If the Allies are using the Singapore, China Axis as a road back to the Empire, Western China will eventually have to be evacuated anyways. I think the force and supply necessary to totally eliminate the Chinese army (unless your opponent it totally inept) is just too much of a drain.

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

What I'm facing is the fact that if you try and maintain stacking limits when conducting an attack in 3x defensive terrain there is NO way to overcome the position except by over stacking.

Joseph,

I'm pretty sure that is WAD. Maybe John will drop in to confirm. As I understand the concept behind stacking limits, it isn't to prevent you from putting 20 div's in a hex, its to prevent you from parking 20 divs in a hex. Subtle, but BIG difference. There is no way to bivouac 20 divs in a 40 mi hex, there just isn't enough real estate unless it is a built up Camp, but to launch an attack from? Sure. But you are going to have a tough time supplying those guys unless they move forward, you just haven't enough roadway to get everything they need to them.

So, do you need to overstack to attack? Heck yeah. Is it a pain to set it up, fail, have to pull everyone out, refresh, move them all back in and make the 2nd attack? Heck yeah? Why do they do that? Slow down the tempo. Seems like it is working ... [;)]

That actually sounds very realistic.

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

What I'm facing is the fact that if you try and maintain stacking limits when conducting an attack in 3x defensive terrain there is NO way to overcome the position except by over stacking.

Joseph,

I'm pretty sure that is WAD. Maybe John will drop in to confirm. As I understand the concept behind stacking limits, it isn't to prevent you from putting 20 div's in a hex, its to prevent you from parking 20 divs in a hex. Subtle, but BIG difference. There is no way to bivouac 20 divs in a 40 mi hex, there just isn't enough real estate unless it is a built up Camp, but to launch an attack from? Sure. But you are going to have a tough time supplying those guys unless they move forward, you just haven't enough roadway to get everything they need to them.

So, do you need to overstack to attack? Heck yeah. Is it a pain to set it up, fail, have to pull everyone out, refresh, move them all back in and make the 2nd attack? Heck yeah? Why do they do that? Slow down the tempo. Seems like it is working ... [;)]

That actually sounds very realistic.

+1

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Joseph,

I'm pretty sure that is WAD. Maybe John will drop in to confirm. As I understand the concept behind stacking limits, it isn't to prevent you from putting 20 div's in a hex, its to prevent you from parking 20 divs in a hex. Subtle, but BIG difference. There is no way to bivouac 20 divs in a 40 mi hex, there just isn't enough real estate unless it is a built up Camp, but to launch an attack from? Sure. But you are going to have a tough time supplying those guys unless they move forward, you just haven't enough roadway to get everything they need to them.

So, do you need to overstack to attack? Heck yeah. Is it a pain to set it up, fail, have to pull everyone out, refresh, move them all back in and make the 2nd attack? Heck yeah? Why do they do that? Slow down the tempo. Seems like it is working ... [;)]

Thanks for this post Pax. I never said stacking limits weren't working as designed, but it's obvious I am looking at stacking limits incorrectly. I was under the impression stacking limits were to prevent uber-stacks, that's clearly not the case. As I mentioned before, if you can afford the supply then over stacking is the way to go. Creating an uber-stack to crush everything in your path is still on the table as long as you can supply it, got it.

So, as long as hordes of Chinese get better adjusted AV due to terrain that still makes them effective despite no supply, I'm going to have to have to over stack to defeat them. Got it.

However, I will say it right now, this is an Allied player's dream then for the mid/late war. Since they'll be the only side that can afford the huge supply expense of over stacking for any length of time they'll be able to take out Japanese strongholds that much easier. Not complaining as it will most likely reflect history, but Japan's late war ability to resist is likely going to be even harder now.

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

Joseph,

I'm pretty sure that is WAD. Maybe John will drop in to confirm. As I understand the concept behind stacking limits, it isn't to prevent you from putting 20 div's in a hex, its to prevent you from parking 20 divs in a hex. Subtle, but BIG difference. There is no way to bivouac 20 divs in a 40 mi hex, there just isn't enough real estate unless it is a built up Camp, but to launch an attack from? Sure. But you are going to have a tough time supplying those guys unless they move forward, you just haven't enough roadway to get everything they need to them.

So, do you need to overstack to attack? Heck yeah. Is it a pain to set it up, fail, have to pull everyone out, refresh, move them all back in and make the 2nd attack? Heck yeah? Why do they do that? Slow down the tempo. Seems like it is working ... [;)]

Thanks for this post Pax. I never said stacking limits weren't working as designed, but it's obvious I am looking at stacking limits incorrectly. I was under the impression stacking limits were to prevent uber-stacks, that's clearly not the case. As I mentioned before, if you can afford the supply then over stacking is the way to go. Creating an uber-stack to crush everything in your path is still on the table as long as you can supply it, got it.

So, as long as hordes of Chinese get better adjusted AV due to terrain that still makes them effective despite no supply, I'm going to have to have to over stack to defeat them. Got it.

However, I will say it right now, this is an Allied player's dream then for the mid/late war. Since they'll be the only side that can afford the huge supply expense of over stacking for any length of time they'll be able to take out Japanese strongholds that much easier. Not complaining as it will most likely reflect history, but Japan's late war ability to resist is likely going to be even harder now.

Without stacking limits te Alies can put as much as they want in a hex and take it now. Stacking limits will make it better because there is a penalty for doing that. If supply runs low before a big attack then that big stack isn't going to wrk very well, so the more they put in a hex the more dicey the prospect of attacking. I sure wish we had adopted them in 42. I was arguing for them, but Jocke I'm sure saw the benefit to not adopting them for his offensives, and declined.

In Burman in 43 he began using a stack of 10-12k AV, almost 500k troops! That can't work with stacking limits. Now it looks like he's doing same thing with probably even more Chinese who have virtually no supply that have just moved out of Chungking. If it was a stacking limits game they'd go to 0 supply immediately.

...and the penalties for hugely over stacking are very big. They matter a lot, and they hit every turn when over stacked.