Will Chungking Hold? Place your bets!

[mogami]

Hi, For that reason alone I will never play 2 day turns. You lose control of carriers and air groups and you LCU also go beserk. (Or I guess I would just never shock attack before I was already winning using the slower attack methods, but the air and carrier battles are still to hard to control.)

Getting the game done faster is a bad reason to use 2 or3 day turns.

[Nikademus]

2 day turns just means you have to plan more conservatively and carefully. To me thats not a bad thing. Too much detail control can also lead to freaky situations, like teleporting airforces and such.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

how many divisions were chewed up at Stalingrad?

in a day?? well, maybe quite a few on the very last day... [:'(]

[Nikademus]

well it is an abstraction.....and most of those casualties are disablements. But the greater point is that it continues to suprise me that players expect to take a full city, defended by 100000+ troops in a few days with minimal casualties. Such campaigns take weeks if not months and can incur casualties that run into the figures seen here.

Then again....if a Japanese division banzai'd into such a firetrap in RL maybe it WOULD have been chewed up in one day. [:D]

[DuckofTindalos]

What? You mean the game isn't hopelessly broken?[:D]

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

well it is an abstraction.....and most of those casualties are disablements. But the greater point is that it continues to suprise me that players expect to take a full city, defended by 100000+ troops in a few days with minimal casualties. Such campaigns take weeks if not months and can incur casualties that run into the figures seen here.

Then again....if a Japanese division banzai'd into such a firetrap in RL maybe it WOULD have been chewed up in one day. [:D]

i thought you only got points for units DESTROYED. Yes, most of the 180,000+ casualties are disablements, but apparently 20000+ were destroyed (20,000 seem to have been the size of a full-strength first-line IJA division at the beginning of the war - at least according to CHS, assuming 6 squads per VP is correct.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

well it is an abstraction.....and most of those casualties are disablements. But the greater point is that it continues to suprise me that players expect to take a full city, defended by 100000+ troops in a few days with minimal casualties. Such campaigns take weeks if not months and can incur casualties that run into the figures seen here.

Then again....if a Japanese division banzai'd into such a firetrap in RL maybe it WOULD have been chewed up in one day. [:D]

Don't know if you've been reading the AAR on this - it HAS been going on for months... and months... with high casualties.

It does not surprise me that this happens... the two day figure seems surprisingly high though (205 victory points). Maybe a record loss for a "winner" of the battle in WITP, i think.

[rtrapasso]

BTW - i went back and looked through the AAR - the siege of Chungking was announced 7 June 1942 - and the battles took place 15 - 16 Feb 1944 - now into the 20th month of siege.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

i thought you only got points for units DESTROYED. Yes, most of the 180,000+ casualties are disablements, but apparently 20000+ were destroyed (20,000 seem to have been the size of a full-strength first-line IJA division at the beginning of the war - at least according to CHS, assuming 6 squads per VP is correct.

Not sure on the points for destroyed only. Given some of the casualty rates Japan has suffered in smaller scale frontal attack actions against strongpoint defenses, one might see a massive body count approaching such a level in a fort 9 urban fight if they were told to Banzai, which is essentially what a shock attack is....and like i said, the Japanese in these situations suffer far greater casualties than Allied units. I'm not saying its 100% accurate....how can it? its an abstracted fight in a game that resolves combat in 24 hour turns. I'd have never shock attacked such a position at level 9 knowing that the cost would have been massive.

As for the siege thing....well the problem with using this city as an example of a "broken" model is that its one of the few cities on the map you CANT really siege...not in the true sense....because it gets supply every day and can be aided from the air. A better example would be a place like Manila or Bataan....i had a recent PBEM where, while my supply lasted, attacking it would have been prohibitly costly to the Japanese attacker, but once my supply was gone completley, my forces started falling like dominos with little cost to the Japanese player. Even the high fort levels didn't help....all with delib attacks too.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

well it is an abstraction.....and most of those casualties are disablements. But the greater point is that it continues to suprise me that players expect to take a full city, defended by 100000+ troops in a few days with minimal casualties. Such campaigns take weeks if not months and can incur casualties that run into the figures seen here.

Then again....if a Japanese division banzai'd into such a firetrap in RL maybe it WOULD have been chewed up in one day. [:D]

The ground combat seems too "abstract". Like I said months ago, would those city defenders really be that good then the German Ostrfront would still be at Stalingrad today - or it would have never came further than Kiev... [8|]

And rupd didn´t try to take the city in a few days...

[rtrapasso]

i can see a large city holding out this long, esp. with intermittent supply (look at Leningrad). The extra 500 per day makes this a strange situation as you point out.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

i can see a large city holding out this long, esp. with intermittent supply (look at Leningrad). The extra 500 per day makes this a strange situation as you point out.

yes, the unlimited auto supply is the obvious problem here. And I don´t know why this auto supply is in the game. Or why it generates the auto supply when the city is sieged. Perhaps the auto supply should be generated for a couple of months but not for an unlimited time...

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: castor troy

The ground combat seems too "abstract". Like I said months ago, would those city defenders really be that good then the German Ostrfront would still be at Stalingrad today - or it would have never came further than Kiev... [8|]

And rupd didn´t try to take the city in a few days...

Its not the defender's fault the attacker decided to Banzai against a [still] supplied enemy entrenched to the max in an urban hex. Had it been a Ger (or in this case, an Allied unit (such as US), the causualties prob would have been 1/2 to 1/3. Japanese on banzai can suffer terribly even in victory. Its not like this is something new.

[treespider]

Would be interesting to see if RUPD would be able to divide his force in half. Attack with 1/2 the 1st set of days and 1/2 the second set of days...in particular since he was able to bring enough troops for a 3:1 on the 1st day.

Notice in the two shock attacks that even though RUPDs mAV was six times higher the 1st day (when compared to the 2nd day) he inflicted roughly the same amount of casualties on the 2nd day.

Granted the 1st groups assaults would get decimated on Days 1 and 2 but the 2nd groups assaults should be facing some disrupted and demoralised defenders on Day 3 and 4 if he were able to get a 1:1 in the first two days with the 1st group.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: castor troy

The ground combat seems too "abstract". Like I said months ago, would those city defenders really be that good then the German Ostrfront would still be at Stalingrad today - or it would have never came further than Kiev... [8|]

And rupd didn´t try to take the city in a few days...

Its not the defender's fault the attacker decided to Banzai against a [still] supplied enemy entrenched to the max in an urban hex. Had it been a Ger (or in this case, an Allied unit (such as US), the causualties prob would have been 1/2 to 1/3. Japanese on banzai can suffer terribly even in victory. Its not like this is something new.

and it´s nothing new that a sieged city that magically can produce so much supplies (food, ammunition,...) FOREVER FOR 250000+ troops is something that people here seem to accept as either realistic or historic... [8|]

and you´re correct, it´s not like this is something new

[Nikademus]

Believe i mentioned that a "siege" complaint thats taking place in a city that technically cannot be fully sieged makes for a poor example to beat up the land model with.....I also posted albeit vaguely (The AAR is still around though) to a true siege that went much smoother for the attacker using siege tactics.

[qgaliana]

In the end yes - the timeline seems to work out well enough. But an eight month siege with repeated assaults is 240 turns of hassle for a player where he gets no sense of progress, and limited or misleading feedback as to whether the situation is improving. As games go, there is cause for complaint. Especially that as an attacker my only choices are full frontal assault, frontal assault but carefully.
 
I'd argue that the way casualties are handled is somewhat suspect and favours the defender too much. RUPD is attacking with 4:1 manpower superiority, total and unopposed air, artillery and tank superiority and took an unfavourable 30:1 ratio in losses (including huge equipment losses). I've noticed out of supply units will often do more damage to the attackers than they receive (with what? rocks and entrenching tools?). I know, I know it's only disablements etc. But if the defender has enough supplies to recover disruption then RUPD really is taking a 30:1 ratio against.
 
Still it all goes hand in hand with the rest of the game - touch this without changing land movement and supply movement and you'll probably make things worse.
 

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

Believe i mentioned that a "siege" complaint thats taking place in a city that technically cannot be fully sieged makes for a poor example to beat up the land model with.....I also posted albeit vaguely (The AAR is still around though) to a true siege that went much smoother for the attacker using siege tactics.

okay, now the land combat routine is okay - perfect (depending on the people here) but then the supply routine sucks?[8|]

[Nikademus]

Didn't say the land routine was perfect.......but complaints like this tend to showcase more the frustration players feel when their plans don't go smoothly. I'll say it one last time and then i'm done....i'd never shock attack a level 9 urban center that still has supply

You can argue the casualty count....you can then turn around and complain about the autosupply routine and curse the dev's name, but none of that changes the fact that it was not a wise player decision.

[Nikademus]

well actually several players have come with some interesting land tactics that have born fruit. Treespider came up with a good rinse and repeat method of attack, and a long time ago, a clever player discovered that you could use engineers alone in an attack (the others bombard) to reduce forts without suffering those upteem casualty counts when the fort level is very high. (The con of that tactic was that it quickly wrecked the ENG unit(s)....some also felt it was a "gamey" move)