Matrix Games Forums

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2011 2:56 pm**

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Oh - I thought a firestorm was supposed to take shots at everything there.

Just my memory from WITP days. Maybe this was changed. Or maybe the OOB weapon effects were tweaked just for Downfall. I haven't been able to get anything like 100,000 fires so far in a GC. With 150-ish B-29s on Manpower night attacks at 7000 feet I get more like 20,000.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2011 3:20 pm**

Firestorms are addressed on pages 152-153 and 264 of the manual.

1. You gain 2 VP per industry point damaged but 20 VP per industry point destroyed. However industry repaired can be damaged again (and the 2 VP again earned) whereas you can only destroy an industry point once.

2. A firestorm can damage any industry but is more likely to be started if manpower centres were targetted. Targetting manpower centres also increases the chances of generating a high firestorm level.

3. The firestorm level can reach up to 40 million and is divided by 10 each 12 hours as the fire is put out.

Alfred

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2011 5:06 pm**

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Firestorms are addressed on pages 152-153 and 264 of the manual.

1. You gain 2 VP per industry point damaged but 20 VP per industry point destroyed. However industry repaired can be damaged again (and the 2 VP again earned) whereas you can only destroy an industry point once.

2. A firestorm can damage any industry but is more likely to be started if manpower centres were targetted. Targetting manpower centres also increases the chances of generating a high firestorm level.

3. The firestorm level can reach up to 40 million and is divided by 10 each 12 hours as the fire is put out.

Alfred

Well, thanks for reminding me once more I don't read the manual enough. [:'(]

Now if I could only get a firestorm started. Forty million! Yeesh!

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2011 6:53 pm**

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Forty million! Yeesh!

OMG, I can say that 100,000 is pretty big and the damage extensive. Cannot imagine 40M ...

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:41 pm**

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I think forts, terrain, and op mode are EXTREMELY relevant to the results you report seeing in your game.

Yes, too relevant, that's my entire point.

In decreasing order of significant, from observation, I would guess that the most important factors in bombing are:

1. Bomb load (way ahead of anything else)
2. Terrain (especially if clear)
3. Op mode (Especially if strat, less so if move)
4. Altitude
5. Forts
6. Other factors (morale, fatigue, attack mode = dive bombing, etc., although these don't seem to matter much).

In additon, AA and fighters can play a role, but these only make a difference if massed (in which case, they can make way too much of a difference).

Forts defenitely make a difference, but they don't make that much difference. In clear terrain, I would consider even a fort level of 6 to be pretty indefensible. I had level 6 fots on Hailar and they didn't offer much protection against the 4Es (a division still had a life span of less than a week).

It's all well and good to say "don't defend in the clear", and ideally you shouldn't, but often that just isn't realistic. Sure, it's nice to be able to defend in the woods or mountains, but when it comes to bases, you really don't have much of a choice where they are placed (and forts, as stated, don't make enough difference). You don't have enough AA to defend everywhere.

If the idea really is to make clear hexes indefensible (as they currently are in WITP), we should be really careful what we call a "clear" hex. I'm ok with having some hexes in the manchurian plain or the Australian outback be "clear" and thus extra vulnerable to air/armor (like desert fighting maybe), but just look how many important bases in Japan are considered "clear".

Now, I've travelled around Japan, and nothing I saw there could possibly be considered "clear". So, I thought I'd use our good friend google street view to take a couple of typical shots of some of these "clear" hexes.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:46 pm**

The only place I found after about 20 minutes of looking that could really be considered to have a lot of "clear" was near Chiba, just South East of Tokyo along the coast. But even here there were an awful lot of towns and villages to really be considered "clear".

Here's some typical shots of the other "clear" hexes. And keep in mind, these are along highways and major roads, which you would think you'd put in the clearest areas.

Here's one near Okayama, a "clear" hex between Hiroshima and Osaka.

Farmland, but just about the least flat countryside you'd ever find in the middle of farmland.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:48 pm**

Here's one just outsides Nagasaki, another so-called clear hex. Note that Nagasaki is a really big city, so why it's not light urban is beyond me.

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:50 pm**

Here's one in the heavily forested (but in WITP mostly clear) north, near Iwaki. Note that Japan is the industrialized country with the highest proportion of old-growth forrest, and one of the most heavily forrested countries outside the tropics (Centuries of samurai chopping off heads for wood stealing will do that).

Posted: **Thu Nov 10, 2011 10:51 pm**

And, for good measure, here's a shot right near Fusan, South Korea, in the relatively rugged (but in WITP mostly clear) southern Korean peninsula.

If clear is going to be set to indefensible, we should be really careful what we paint as "clear". I'm not sure very much in Japan or Korea qualifies (though China/Manchuria might qualify more, I don't really know and streetview is more limited there).

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:17 am**

ORIGINAL: witpqs

As you guys are pointing out, it's true that the modeling is (of course) imperfect, and it's off in both directions for different things. We can want to get each thing right, but in the real world it ain't gonna happen. Even though Michael keeps fixing many things there are just too many in the long run. And, it goes beyond 4EB - naval attack (as I've mentioned before) has also been shown to have many issues. Just one is what someone mentioned here in terms of torpedo ordnance available to IJ air groups, especially early in the game. If you play with a modest amount of restraint, but not hobbling house rules, you get a good contest.

Although I dislike house rules and wish things were hard-coded, I much prefer house rules to "restraint". "Restraint" is a pretty grey area that leaves it open to each player to decide what the rules are. As we've seen on this forum, opinions vary extremely widely amongst players on what is reasonable (simulators vs. gamers, etc.). This not only leads to unequal contests, but more potential for angst down the road. House rules put both players on the same playing field, and flesh out exactly where they stand on particular issues. Result: both sides end up playing with the same set of agreed upon rules - and feel more comfortable if even for just discussing the issues.

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:31 am**

ORIGINAL: rader

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I think forts, terrain, and op mode are EXTREMELY relevant to the results you report seeing in your game.

Yes, too relevant, that's my entire point.

In decreasing order of significant, from observation, I would guess that the most important factors in bombing are:

1. Bomb load (way ahead of anything else)
2. Terrain (especially if clear)
3. Op mode (Especially if strat, less so if move)
4. Altitude
5. Forts
6. Other factors (morale, fatigue, attack mode = dive bombing, etc., although these don't seem to matter much).

In additon, AA and fighters can play a role, but these only make a difference if massed (in which case, they can make way too much of a difference).

Forts defenitely make a difference, but they don't make that much difference. In clear terrain, I would consider even a fort level of 6 to be pretty indefensible. I had level 6 fots on Hailar and they didn't offer much protection against the 4Es (a division still had a life span of less than a week).

It's all well and good to say "don't defend in the clear", and ideally you shouldn't, but often that just isn't realistic. Sure, it's nice to be able to defend in the woods or mountains, but when it comes to bases, you really don't have much of a choice where they are placed (and forts, as stated, don't make enough difference). You don't have enough AA to defend everywhere.

If the idea really is to make clear hexes indefensible (as they currently are in WITP), we should be really careful what we call a "clear" hex. I'm ok with having some hexes in the manchurian plain or the Australian outback be "clear" and thus extra vulnerable to air/armor (like desert fighting maybe), but just look how many important bases in Japan are considered "clear".

Now, I've travelled around Japan, and nothing I saw there could possibly be considered "clear". So, I thought I'd use our good friend google street view to take a couple of typical shots of some of these "clear" hexes.

Beating Ye Olde Dead Horse . . .

You're not being true to the game design, again.

1) "Forts" ain't "Forts" (apologies ot Perdue Chicken.) Forts in a base hex, 0-9, are permanent, engineered structures. A Forts 6 in a base are very substantial, concrete and steel permanent bunkers, pillboxes, and fighting positions. A Forts 6 in an open, non-base hex are temporary, field-designed and built structures, along the lines of trenches and log and sandbag OPs and light bunkers. (Can an LCU even build field Forts to 6? I don't recall more than a 4, but maybe I move my guys too often.) So you can't say that a Forts 6 in a non-base hex ought to give significant protection to infantry. Bombs, and arty, take out men in trenches real good.

2) Yes, the circled areas you circled may be "Clear" terrain, but they're bases, which means they can build (see #1), "real" Forts, not field Forts. Those forts offer substantial protection to troops. With a "real" Forts 6 you will not see a division wiped out in a week. If you maintain that you will I ask now that you provide evidence of this.

3) Conclusion: don't obsess with terrain. (Although the travel pictures were nice.) If you don't have AA or fighters, put your troops in bases in Real Forts. Otherwise, if you chose to defend in the fields, take what you get. The model is what it is.

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 11:48 am**

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

... Beating Ye Olde Dead Horse . . .

Ah...so that is what happened to your missing Mongolian pony.

Alfred

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 12:06 pm**

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

... Beating Ye Olde Dead Horse . . .

Ah...so that is what happened to your missing Mongolian pony.

Alfred

Beating a dead horse tenderizes the meat, don't cha know?

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 1:24 pm**

I've never beat a dead horse, but I've flogged a dog a time or two. [;)]

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:17 pm**

Moose, I think we are talking about forts 6 in base hexes because I concur that forts don't seem to go above 4 in non-base hexes. Even in forts 6 in a base hex we've seen bombing results that kill a division in a week. This just doesn't square with all the readings I recall from both theaters of WWII along the lines of "despite a 3 week bombing campaign, resistance was still stout."

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:27 pm**

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

... Beating Ye Olde Dead Horse . . .

Ah...so that is what happened to your missing Mongolian pony.

Alfred

Beating a dead horse tenderizes the meat, don't cha know?

That is what the black lines are on the McRib... which is back now. Greatest thing ever.

Rader- Aren't those pictures modern day though, not that it would change a GREAT GREAT deal terrain wise in 70 years...

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:38 pm**

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Moose, I think we are talking about forts 6 in base hexes because I concur that forts don't seem to go above 4 in non-base hexes. Even in forts 6 in a base hex we've seen bombing results that kill a division in a week. This just doesn't square with all the readings I recall from both theaters of WWII along the lines of "despite a 3 week bombing campaign, resistance was still stout."

I agree on all points. Several AAR's have this well documented. 4E's will penetrate any fort level in a base. In spite of that, there is still no concensus that it happens.

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 2:59 pm**

ORIGINAL: Alfred

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

... Beating Ye Olde Dead Horse . . .

Ah...so that is what happened to your missing Mongolian pony.

Alfred

Ah, Sparky! I miss you still!

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:00 pm**

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

Even in forts 6 in a base hex we've seen bombing results that kill a division in a week.

Can you post the combat reports?

Posted: **Fri Nov 11, 2011 3:02 pm**

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

That is what the black lines are on the McRib... which is back now. Greatest thing ever.

I read this week that a McRib contains over 70 ingredients which are not meat, including one chemical which is a primary component of gym mats and shoe soles. It might have been in last week's Time magazine.

Yum.

Matrix Games Forums

Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II

RE: Ground bombing is borked, part II