RE: it goes on...
Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 12:50 pm
ORIGINAL: Zond
As the XXzard already said...
This game is a textbook example of quality trashing. Keep up the good work [;)]
lol
What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
ORIGINAL: Zond
As the XXzard already said...
This game is a textbook example of quality trashing. Keep up the good work [;)]
I´ve never sent such a big Army into combat and I´ve never suffered so many casualties in one turn when no units surrendered. I´m pretty sure that we only inflicted losses within the enemy´s HQ units that are in the lead, there are at least five or six I guess. Next attack in three or four days. If our eng can´t take down another fort level then the assault is already a failure as we then won´t be able to take down a fort because I doubt we will achieve a 1:1. This attack has cost us more than 1500 assault points. Whenever possible, try to avoid land combat in WITP when there are more than two divisions involved.ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk
Surprised me that you weren't that far off from a 1-1 at Irkutsk.
Been a while since it's been brought up . . . how is your fuel situation? Presumably w/ little to no naval combat in the forseeable future you'll be able to save a little bit.
ORIGINAL: Yakface
Can you bomb the base? - force the engineers to repair the airfield rather than replace the forts. Gives you longer to recover diabled units rather than always having to attack early for fear of the forts going back up.
ORIGINAL: Sneer
my experiance from my halted pbem is that player should stay away from big battles in witp
no matter what you do results are at least weird
if irkutck has auto supply it may be an impossible task....
ORIGINAL: castor troy
ORIGINAL: Yakface
Can you bomb the base? - force the engineers to repair the airfield rather than replace the forts. Gives you longer to recover diabled units rather than always having to attack early for fear of the forts going back up.
I could bomb it of course (from Ulan Ude, range 4) and I´ve thought about it for perhaps... 10 sec..., but decided that it would be contraproductive for the state of my IJAAF medium bomber force. Problem is once again the all and everything killing enemy flak defense. Even an attack from 20.000 would be suicide and not worth the 30 hits on the runway that would be repaired by the hundreds (if not a thousand) eng squads in no time, while still being able to repair the Russian Maginot line.
ORIGINAL: Yakface
ORIGINAL: castor troy
ORIGINAL: Yakface
Can you bomb the base? - force the engineers to repair the airfield rather than replace the forts. Gives you longer to recover diabled units rather than always having to attack early for fear of the forts going back up.
I could bomb it of course (from Ulan Ude, range 4) and I´ve thought about it for perhaps... 10 sec..., but decided that it would be contraproductive for the state of my IJAAF medium bomber force. Problem is once again the all and everything killing enemy flak defense. Even an attack from 20.000 would be suicide and not worth the 30 hits on the runway that would be repaired by the hundreds (if not a thousand) eng squads in no time, while still being able to repair the Russian Maginot line.
Hmm - You have my sympathies - if you can't bomb bases for fear of the flak then this mod is borked. What point is there i having a medium bomber force if it can't be used at the decisive point?
ORIGINAL: castor troy
I´m taking nearly a dozen op losses per turn from those training raids. All from the bases that are two hexes away from the target. Losing something like 300 ac per month in training raids is too much, only training runs from one hex are safe for the Japanese.
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
ORIGINAL: castor troy
I´m taking nearly a dozen op losses per turn from those training raids. All from the bases that are two hexes away from the target. Losing something like 300 ac per month in training raids is too much, only training runs from one hex are safe for the Japanese.
Hum, in my last game with Moses, he pushed me into having to do most of my IJA fighter training from Manilla and "bombing" San Jose ... a two hex run. I recall working out an alternating system whereby I was able to avoid the kinds of losses you're seeing. Also he "kept me honest" by occasionally hitting Manilla with B-24s from China - so I had to put some guys on CAP.
But despite all these interferences I was able to rotate my units roughly every two months. Some would only spend one turn at the front in Burma (a 36 plane units might lose 24 planes in one 2-day turn) and then the unit would get rotated back to Manilla.
Moses had wanted PDU "on" ... so during rotations back to Manilla, I would "downgrade" the fighters to Nates or Oscars (when the Nates ran out) ... so I would train up with old planes and then reupgrade back when the units went to the front. This meant I could consume every plane I was given and only had ot build the new planes to fight at the front (spare HI point thus being spent on more ship acceleration).
But my air attrition losses seemed lower than yours - I think I put my units on "training" every 2-3 turns - to avoid high fatigue.
Oh in the early going I tried to hit 80 average EXP before returning to the front - at one point I got in trouble and lowered the threshold to 75 ... then after a few months units were piling up at the front - so I re-raised the threshold back to 80. Just talking fighters here. We allowed the "supply" training thingy for bombers so different system there. I think the supply thingy either went away in 1806 or it will in 1807 ... so then bombers will have to train differently going forward.
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
ORIGINAL: castor troy
I´m taking nearly a dozen op losses per turn from those training raids. All from the bases that are two hexes away from the target. Losing something like 300 ac per month in training raids is too much, only training runs from one hex are safe for the Japanese.
Hum, in my last game with Moses, he pushed me into having to do most of my IJA fighter training from Manilla and "bombing" San Jose ... a two hex run. I recall working out an alternating system whereby I was able to avoid the kinds of losses you're seeing. Also he "kept me honest" by occasionally hitting Manilla with B-24s from China - so I had to put some guys on CAP.
But despite all these interferences I was able to rotate my units roughly every two months. Some would only spend one turn at the front in Burma (a 36 plane units might lose 24 planes in one 2-day turn) and then the unit would get rotated back to Manilla.
Moses had wanted PDU "on" ... so during rotations back to Manilla, I would "downgrade" the fighters to Nates or Oscars (when the Nates ran out) ... so I would train up with old planes and then reupgrade back when the units went to the front. This meant I could consume every plane I was given and only had ot build the new planes to fight at the front (spare HI point thus being spent on more ship acceleration).
But my air attrition losses seemed lower than yours - I think I put my units on "training" every 2-3 turns - to avoid high fatigue.
Oh in the early going I tried to hit 80 average EXP before returning to the front - at one point I got in trouble and lowered the threshold to 75 ... then after a few months units were piling up at the front - so I re-raised the threshold back to 80. Just talking fighters here. We allowed the "supply" training thingy for bombers so different system there. I think the supply thingy either went away in 1806 or it will in 1807 ... so then bombers will have to train differently going forward.
ORIGINAL: castor troy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Irkutsk
Japanese Deliberate attack
Attacking force 589727 troops, 5764 guns, 3391 vehicles, Assault Value = 12049
Defending force 150509 troops, 1765 guns, 201 vehicles, Assault Value = 3066
Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 8
Japanese max assault: 10743 - adjusted assault: 4796
Allied max defense: 3144 - adjusted defense: 5558
Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 8)
Japanese ground losses:
27838 casualties reported
Guns lost 733
Vehicles lost 243
Allied ground losses:
5038 casualties reported
Guns lost 241
Vehicles lost 6
omg... our first attack and the ground combat routine once again shows how "well" it works. As every unit gets a shot at every enemy unit, the result of sending in more troops for an attack only results in more casualties for you. I had more than a dozen eng rgts and ALL are completely wrecked. They have ALL their combat eng squads disabled, guess with the losses within our inf divs, I´ve had nearly 800 combat eng squads disabled in just one attack. I´ve never sent such a big Army into combat and I´ve never suffered so many casualties in one turn when no units surrendered. I´m pretty sure that we only inflicted losses within the enemy´s HQ units that are in the lead, there are at least five or six I guess. Next attack in three or four days. If our eng can´t take down another fort level then the assault is already a failure as we then won´t be able to take down a fort because I doubt we will achieve a 1:1. This attack has cost us more than 1500 assault points. Whenever possible, try to avoid land combat in WITP when there are more than two divisions involved.

). And last but not least, while we lose 2000 av with each attack, the enemy loses 100-150.
. Means one attack disables the equivalent of 5 IJA divisions. [&o]ORIGINAL: castor troy
I have yet to hear why 100% prepped, not fatigued, not disrupted, fully supplied units get their av halfed.
ORIGINAL: Yakface
ORIGINAL: castor troy
I have yet to hear why 100% prepped, not fatigued, not disrupted, fully supplied units get their av halfed.
I've heard that some defensive adjustments (eg terrain and forts) are applied to the attacker as a negative modifier. Others (eg prep, HQ) are applied as positives to defensive AV.
