RE: Japanese Death Star Artillery
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:06 pm
To kill any flavoured Artillery Deathstar, Have a look at the editor and maybe tweak back the artillery effect ratings.
What's your Strategy?
https://forums.matrixgames.com:443/
ORIGINAL: Miller
Dan is pretty hacked off with good reason. I will restrict the number of ART units per hex from now on. Not sure what a reasonable number is.......3 or 4 perhaps? Opinions?
I think some posters in this thread suggested 1 unit per division infantry equivalent (1 per 3 regiments). Other posters have suggested trying to mimic the effect of short supply by limiting bombardment to 2 turns or so and then discontinuing for a time.ORIGINAL: Miller
Dan is pretty hacked off with good reason. I will restrict the number of ART units per hex from now on. Not sure what a reasonable number is.......3 or 4 perhaps? Opinions?
ORIGINAL: Miller
Dan is pretty hacked off with good reason. I will restrict the number of ART units per hex from now on. Not sure what a reasonable number is.......3 or 4 perhaps? Opinions?
ORIGINAL: WITPPL
I do not have enough life time to be as active on this board as most of You fellows but If I can add my 2c (it comes from 20 years of being a geek) - Its not the brightest idea Ive read. I think that I can call it completely a historical.
Let’s summarize:
Art should inflict much less casualties in the open than in a city.
Heavy Art >150mm should take much more time to deploy, redeploy
Art in a game inflicts less looses than ww1 barrages. Less than Art used heavily vs Cities (ie Warsaw 1944) during ww2.
Pretty much that’s it.
Limiting something that kills right in a war game does not look cool.
BTW: Who are complaining? Allies? Jeez...
IIRC Nobody hit 1943 to see what will happened
Nobody has conquered CHINA yet
but they are crying already
Aye, this will probably get changed one day.ORIGINAL: witpqs
1 - There is a supply issue, in that supplies used are unrealistically low.
Who told you this?2 - There is a problem with fortifications, in that they don't apply against artillery.
Yup, house rules can handle artillery limits on pull out of Manchuria just as they handle general troop pull out from Manchuria.Those two things are major (especially the forts issue). Aside from them, I'm not sure that there are additional issues with artillery.
Regarding Manchuria, it is probably unrealistic to pull out all the arty or even a great amount of it as it was there to balance the Soviets. So I probably wouldn't do it, but it's up to the players in a PBEM to decide that on their own.
ORIGINAL: WITPPL
Art should inflict much less casualties in the open than in a city.
ORIGINAL: witpqs
1 - There is a supply issue, in that supplies used are unrealistically low.
2 - There is a problem with fortifications, in that they don't apply against artillery.
Those two things are major (especially the forts issue). Aside from them, I'm not sure that there are additional issues with artillery.
Regarding Manchuria, it is probably unrealistic to pull out all the arty or even a great amount of it as it was there to balance the Soviets. So I probably wouldn't do it, but it's up to the players in a PBEM to decide that on their own.
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Who told you this?ORIGINAL: witpqs
2 - There is a problem with fortifications, in that they don't apply against artillery.
I do wonder about the seeming lack of protective effects of fortifications on artillery. IRL being caught in the open by artillery is far more deadly, but in-game it seems as if it makes no difference being in the open or in any level of fortifications.
This is SAIEW in terms of WitP. There has been some discussion on altering it, but any time you involve coding, it gets complicated. Tweaking the casualties for example seems easy. Turned out not to be so easy. I think every programmer on the team has permanent eye strain now.
ORIGINAL: witpqs
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Who told you this?ORIGINAL: witpqs
2 - There is a problem with fortifications, in that they don't apply against artillery.
Earlier in this thread.
My Question:
I do wonder about the seeming lack of protective effects of fortifications on artillery. IRL being caught in the open by artillery is far more deadly, but in-game it seems as if it makes no difference being in the open or in any level of fortifications.
Nikademus' Answer:
This is SAIEW in terms of WitP. There has been some discussion on altering it, but any time you involve coding, it gets complicated. Tweaking the casualties for example seems easy. Turned out not to be so easy. I think every programmer on the team has permanent eye strain now.
ORIGINAL: ckammp
The solution is easy, and obvious:
Play vs. AI.
Playing vs. AI avoids the gamey "unbeatable artillery death star".
Thus, playing vs. AI is the best, most satisfying method of enjoying WitP:AE. [:)]
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
8. If I play the Japanese, I now know how to easily defeat China. I just save all my Political Points until I can bring all my artillery to bear in China. Then I methodically destroy the Chinese Army and take all (or essentially all) of the country. Then I move those units somewhere else - Russia or India if I want to remain on the offensive; or to defensive positions if I want to make my defenses in the Pacific impregnable. Think how tough it's going to be for the Allies to advance in the Pacific if the Japs have all those Chinese troops stationed at Luzon, Java, Okinowa, Formosa, etc.
ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
Interesting ideas worth considering, Shark.
Another problem in China is the terribly one-sided casualties inflicted. Here's a good example from my turn of June 13, 1942:
For the Japanese deliberate attack at Chengchow the two sides had essentially equal infantry numbers, the Japanese had seventeen artillery units, and forts had been reduced from 4 to 0 over a few weeks of attacks and artillery bombardments. So the Chinese are about ready for defeat. The Japanese attack comes off at 2:1, costing the Japs 1,643 casualties to 18,409 for the Chinese.[&:]
A few days ago, a large Chinese army clobbered two Japanese units attempting to besiege Nanyang. The Japanese retreated and most of the Chinese followed. On the 13th, a fresh and victorious Chinese army attacks the defeated, disorganized, routed Japanese units a hex east of Nanyang. This attack comes off at 37:1 and inflictes 3,768 Japanese casualties to 1,171 for the Chinese. Huh? The next day, a 50:1 Chinese attack inflictes 7,823 to 404. Better, but how does a 37:1 attack for the Chinese achieve 3:1 ratio in losses while a 2:1 Japanese attack achieves 12:1 ratio of losses?
And this is not an isolated occurrence. This is every attack in the game to date.[:@]
ORIGINAL: treespider
Which is why when I get around to doing my mod a fair number of these guys will be made to be Permanently restricted. If Japan wants to take units out of manchuria let them take the Infantry and some Tanks...units which actually count towards the garrison requirements.
ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Aye, this will probably get changed one day.ORIGINAL: witpqs
1 - There is a supply issue, in that supplies used are unrealistically low.
Who told you this?2 - There is a problem with fortifications, in that they don't apply against artillery.
Yup, house rules can handle artillery limits on pull out of Manchuria just as they handle general troop pull out from Manchuria.Those two things are major (especially the forts issue). Aside from them, I'm not sure that there are additional issues with artillery.
Regarding Manchuria, it is probably unrealistic to pull out all the arty or even a great amount of it as it was there to balance the Soviets. So I probably wouldn't do it, but it's up to the players in a PBEM to decide that on their own.