Notes from a Small Island

[Canoerebel]

Allied combat engineer units include combat squads and have an assault value. Non-combat engineer units (like Seabees) don't have an AV.

The big US combat engineer units have an AV of something like 251!

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: inqistor

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

However, I learned recently that having independent combat engineers present isn't a guarantee as I had no fort reductions in a recent attack on Hong Kong that achieved 1-2 odds. I had three American combat engineer battalions embedded with the attacking Chinese army. Was greatly disappointed. Not sure if it would have worked if the three battalions were regiments.

Are you sure, that those units contain actual Combat Engineers? I haven't noticed it on Allies side, but I have recently discovered, that some IJA Independent Engineers in Korea, have only normal Engineers in TOE. They have the same icon, as other Combat Engineer units, they have the same name (Independent Engineer Regiment), but somehow have only normal Engineers as squads.

It seems to me that the Combat Engineers don't do well at fort reduction if there is not enough firepower backing them up - i.e. pinning down the enemy. Instead the combat engineers get pinned down and can't get their demolition charges in place. I'm not saying that is modeled exactly in the combat algorithms but whatever abstraction was used seems to have a similar result when there is not enough infantry/tank power available.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Allied combat engineer units include combat squads and have an assault value. Non-combat engineer units (like Seabees) don't have an AV.

The big US combat engineer units have an AV of something like 251!

And are actually rather fragile against lots of opposition - they don't have many other devices in the unit, so if they take a big hit in the combat (as they seem to want to do, reducing the forts and all) then the unit can be knocked out of action for months.

I actually ran out of combat engineers in one of my games because I had to rebuild 2 of them from virtual destruction.

But hey, even 30 Cbt Engis is pretty good sometimes.

[RangerJoe]

True but the two in question are going to leave so he won't have to worry about rebuilding them.

[Canoerebel]

Loka is right, though I try no avoid having the squads destroyed. In the Ketoi reduction, my big combat engineer squad got chewed up early - almost entirely disabled in the first attack or two. I ended up pulling it off the island early and sending it to balmy Shikuka for R&R. It's still sitting there today, a month or more later, prepping for Uuruppu. It's squads are fully "abled" again, so it's ready to fight.

[HansBolter]

That they get chewed up is one of the reasons for having multiple on hand so they can rest without slowing operations too much.


In the Hong Kong assault the three engineer battalions were supplimented by 4500 AV of Chinese troops, but didn't drop the level 8 fort with a 1 to 2. A previous 1 to 2 did drop the fort from 9 to 8.

Seabees do have an assault value. Battalions have 12 IIRC and regimements have 36. Allows them to take unoccupied bases. Army engineer units have no assault value.

[Canoerebel]

More is better but prep time is the limiting factor.

Since the initial invasion of Sikhalin in June, I've had a handful of combat engineer units prepped in the Kuriles. Once Shikuka and Toyohara were taken, prep was switched to various Kuriles islands in order of perceived priority, with Paramushiro, Onnekotan, Ketoi and Uruppu being the primary targets, if I remember correctly. The Japanese siege on Shikuka then occupied the next four months, finally ending with the cataclysmic naval clashes in early September and early October. At that point, I greenlighted Ketoi because it seemed to have the weakest garrison. When it finished, winter had set in, so Parmushiro and Onnekotan were scrubbed and Uruppu was chosen. I had two small combat engineer units 100% prepped. They are scheduled for imminent withdrawal, which complicates things. The big combat engineer unit pulled out of Ketoi after getting battered is prepping at about 40% for Urupp and will come in soon.

All that to say this: More is better, but foreseeing need, allocating properly, adjusting on the fly, and prep time complicate things immeasurably beyond simply saying, "Bring more."

[RangerJoe]

Yes, more is better. Or as I learned in the Army "Why use a little hammer if you have a big one?"

Another question: Is your Naval Air bombing as well? If so, ground units, airbase and/or port strikes?

[Canoerebel]

Naval air hasn't been employed against land targets and rarely if ever will be until the Allies have air supremacy.

Erik's airfields are numerous, large, most with huge numbers of good fighters. Carrier air is too precious and brittle to use against them (especially since most carrier bombers are trained to Naval skills but usually not Ground Bombing) and too important to protecting Death Star and various other important TFs, keeping them safe in the midst of all those airfields.

[Canoerebel]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
...Seabees do have an assault value. Battalions have 12 IIRC and regimements have 36. Allows them to take unoccupied bases. Army engineer units have no assault value.

I don't think this is right. Seabees, regular naval engineer units, and regular army engineer units do not have offensive capabilities. They do have a modest defensive AV drawn from the "cooks and laborers." So they can defend against small enemy assault but are not capable of taking enemy bases or dot hexes on their own.

If I'm wrong, school me. I constantly forget things I used to know or get things wrong I think I know. Every game, I have to relearn that I can't withdraw ships from Pearl....and to my mortification just re-learned that Cold Zone effects set in on November 1 rather than December 1 <blush>.

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
...Seabees do have an assault value. Battalions have 12 IIRC and regimements have 36. Allows them to take unoccupied bases. Army engineer units have no assault value.

I don't think this is right. Seabees, regular naval engineer units, and regular army engineer units do not have offensive capabilities. They do have a modest defensive AV drawn from the "cooks and laborers." So they can defend against small enemy assault but are not capable of taking enemy bases or dot hexes on their own.

If I'm wrong, school me. I constantly forget things I used to know or get things wrong I think I know. Every game, I have to relearn that I can't withdraw ships from Pearl....and to my mortification just re-learned that Cold Zone effects set in on November 1 rather than December 1 <blush>.

It may depend on the mod. In stock Scenario 1 I have never seen a CB with an Assault Value, but the CPNAB units scattered around SOPAC at game start do have some infantry with them, IIRC. Similarly, Construction Regiments and EAB units do not have an AV.
It is also possible that TOE upgrades late war could add some infantry to some of the construction units.

[jwolf]

Cold Zone effects set in on November 1 rather than December 1

Amazingly, it's cold in the Arctic in November. Who would have thought? [:'(]

Good luck as you continue the Kurile campaign. FWIW I think you already have enough firepower at Uruppu to begin chewing down his forts, attacking say once per week and then keeping the pressure on the enemy trough naval bombardments. It will be interesting for the spectators to see this playing out. [8D]

[Canoerebel]

11/24/44

Uruppu: Naval bombardments consistently underperform compared to how they did against Ketoi Jima. The terrain modifier (3x vs. 2x) is likely the reason. The only other thing I can think of is the possibility that the CD unit opposing the Allied TFs is better quality or stronger than the one that was posted at Ketoi, thus impeding performance like AA can impede bomber performance.

[Canoerebel]

11/24/44

Uruppu: Little progress made today towards reducing this fortress. Even the Japanese auto-bombardment wasn't as self-destructive as usual.

Air force bombings during the day had little effect too.

Hopefully, the constant bombing is disrupting enemy units despite the 3x terrain and forts (it probably is, at least to an extent).

And hopefully enemy supply stockpiles aren't unlimited or robust.

[RangerJoe]

I think that the Garrison unit is just infantry and support with little or no artillery. Those two engineer units are probably the Korean laborer type with no combat value other than to take hits. Do you have any extra artillery to bring in?

Maybe have smaller bombardment task forces to do lots more bombardments. That might increase the fatigue and disruption and actually be more effective in reducing the combat capabilities. Also, some night bombing to interrupt their sleep as well.

[Canoerebel]

Night bombing to keep the enemy awake sounds like a good idea. I'll give that a try.

Three more arty units are prepping, two in the Kuriles, one in the Aleutians. They'll be coming sooner or later.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Maybe have smaller bombardment task forces to do lots more bombardments. That might increase the fatigue and disruption and actually be more effective in reducing the combat capabilities. Also, some night bombing to interrupt their sleep as well.

+1

I can't possibly give a large enough vote of support for this.

Players get discouraged easily because the visibly reported combat results are meager.

In reducing an occupied base it is the unseen, unreported combat results of morale suppression and disruption and fatigue increase (or at least prevention of fatigue and disruption reduction) that are most important and more than worth the effort for ongoing bombardment and bombing campaigns.

This also why I like to bombard with DD TFs in addition to the efforts by the bigger boys.
There is usually something to be gained by piling on.

[Canoerebel]

Right now, I'm cycling three good BB TFs - one bombarding each day. Occasionally, there's an open day in which I can use a DD TF to "fill the gap."

Overall, though, I've found that only one bombardment TF per day has a notable effect - the effects of any following bombardment TFs are dampened considerably. So as long as I have a BB TF bombarding each day, I'm unlikely to assign other TFs to double-up on a same day.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Right now, I'm cycling three good BB TFs - one bombarding each day. Occasionally, there's an open day in which I can use a DD TF to "fill the gap."

Overall, though, I've found that only one bombardment TF per day has a notable effect - the effects of any following bombardment TFs are dampened considerably. So as long as I have a BB TF bombarding each day, I'm unlikely to assign other TFs to double-up on a same day.

The visible, reported effects are diminished considerably.

Only your opponent knows if the invisible, unreported effects are diminished.


Addressing the question of SeaBee's having an assault value I have to confess I play Babes based mods with full stacking limitsd and have long forgotten what a stock game looks like.

USN Construction Engineer squads have an assault value.

Regiments have an AV of 36.

This is what a SeaBee looks like in Babes:

[CaptBeefheart]

Never mind bombardments, think of those poor Fijian commandos freezing up there near the Arctic Circle!

Cheers,
CC