Matrix Games Forums

Very interesting. Thank you for adding your insight. And please post more often ! It is nice to hear from guys with actual experience.

What Budman said.

Based on my military service and what I have read about history of WW II, fortifications reduce effect of artillery drastically indeed.

So, basically even lvl 1 fortification in game (basically individual foxholes) should drop casualties to 1/10 compared to non-fortified unit. This is for bombardment only.

In my, admittedly limited experience, artillery deathstars are only a problem when one side has a ton of arty, and the other has next to none. Only if enemy is completely outgunned and cannot effectively fire back, the situation devolves from siege to massacre. I have no problem with that. The side that is completely inferior in artillery (and cannot compensate by naval bombardements, huge air attacks, etc) should suffer unsurmountable disadvantage in hex-contesting battles of attrition, one way or another, to reflect realities of WW II battlefields. It simply has no means to save itself from having its defences gradually picked apart. The problem with bombardement lies in low supply requirements, which allow to use it turn after turn, until artillery units are too fatigued, even on unimportant targets. So bombarding is no-brainer and you don't need to bother with picking, where you really need your artillery. And supplying extended campaigns in China is too easy for Japanese in general.

ORIGINAL: USS Henrico

Questions come to my mind:

1)Is there an additional hit to supply for bombarding in Patch 2? (I have a PBEM going on and haven't upgraded yet)

2)Are the massive casualties coming from using the stand alone artillery units or are we seeing it from the inherent artillery in division/regiments?

3)Can we isolate the casualties to specific artillery weapons that are being fired so that players can come up with house rules to avoid overusing them, and push for these killers to be toned down in the next patch (whenever that is)?

4)Is there an issue (bug?) with how the forts protect against artillery fire in general? Or against specific artillery weapons?

Seems like we can come up with a solution(s) if we can pinpoint the cause.

I agree with USSHenrico. I think we need some additional explanation for the effects rather than just the end result to be able to tell what's going on here. Lots of potential explanations that have yet to be fully investigated, IMHO.

@ Budman: very interesting idea. I don't know the *current* effects of bombardment / artillery in the programming-would be interesting to hear the specifics on how they are currently calculated vis a vis entrenchment levels at this time.

By the way, for those of you on the 'dishing out' side of the artillery equation a question: What are your experiences re: fatigue / disruption levels on your artillery units after a day or two of bombardment?

An example for myself: (Pre patch II, early-mid January 1942) I've moved several independent artillery regiments and battalions onto Luzon to effect the seige of Bataan, where my Allied PBEM opponent has fallen back. I control all other hexes on Luzon and supply is not an issue. Units are partially prepped for Bataan. After 1-2 days of bombardment, they rise from 0/5 to 14/56 (disruption / fatigue) and need to stand down a day or so to recuperate, lest they be less combat effective.

I suggest that this needed 'pause' is another brake that should slow down the use of bombardment. I don't know how those using 'artillery death stars' can carry out bombardment turn after turn without this coming up as an issue.

@ Canoerebel: Playing as IJ in PBEM (x2), I find China to be quite engaging. My opponent is using Chinese forces well to delay, obfuscate, annoy and harass my movements. He (dirtbag [;)]) has effectively used AVG to ambush some unescorted LBA bombers of mine, requiring me to be more conservative with my bombing efforts too.

As I am intentionally not overly concentrating my forces (with the exception of a pretty sizable nucleus to fracture the Loyang / Nanyang line), I'm finding that the Chinese can defend well. Already, the IJA have been bloodied where they have ventured too far too fast. The Chinese have defended well in wooded hexes, broken terrain and at river hexes, particularly *when HQ support is present*.

Outside of the supply picture (and HRs prohibiting no strategic bombing of Chinese cities), I'm not sure what can be done to change the effect of artillery without unintended consequences. Before wholesale changes are adopted, I'd like a better feel for how 'nerfing' artillery will affect the island campaign, the 1944 battle for the Phillipines and DEI, the campaign in Burma and (sometimes) Australia and the Solomons. Artillery on Iwo Jima and Okinawa IRL was absolutely murderous in defense. It will affect the chemistry of the game unless this is 'gotten right'.

For one, I think that China theatre changes (only) is a non-starter. This will impede the ability of the Allies to mount an offensive through China later in the war, should they so choose. It could also allow the Chinese hordes to run roughshod over dug in IJA troops even if the latter have artillery superiority in defense.

So, Canoerebel, with due deference to your thread: I respectfully submit that I'm not convinced that the problems you are seeing merit developer recode of artillery at this time in China. I am enjoying my game(s) very much without nerfed artillery. I respectfully submit that perhaps you and Miller should impose some HRs, however philosophically unpalatable they may be to you, to address your problems. That will likely be the route that I take with my PBEM partners with similar issues that arise.

Has anyone done testing of this against the AI? I'm not yet running patch 2 and against the AI I'm averaging 300-1000 casualties even with a 1500+ gun artillery stack. I'll post results when I get home from work, if the reports still exist.

Yep, I am still getting whupped in China, and he is not using any death stars. Just beating the heck out of me and I have pretty much run out of troops. It is April 42. Sian is gone, Kweilin is gone, Changsha is gone. He should have Chunking within 3 months. I don't have enough supply for replacments. Since the patch, most of my forward cities now have no supply and will not draw any. I can't use any airforce, (even the AVG) out of a front line city as they will all break down without supply.
 
My opponent is smart enough to never surround or eliminate any of my troops so they cannot return as reinforcments in 30 days. Just pushes them back and slays them. Shock attack after shock attack. No city is safe, no river line is defensible, no terrain helps. I am getting blown out of every spot I try to defend.  He had dedicated a lot of forces to China so I am realistic but I would have expected the campaign to take much longer even under the circumstances. Once China goes, I am going to have serious problems elsewhere. In order for the game to work right, China should be a morass for Japan. It is not now.
 
Death star is the least of my worries there.

The developers aren't going to react solely based upon my observations, but it's just one bit of information they'll consider.  If it turns out I'm an anomaly, they'll have every reason to disregard my results.  If it turns out what's going on is an accurate reflection of the game as a whole then I know changes will be made.

I was defending well in China until the appearance of the Artillery Death Star.  Even the strategic bombing hadn't broken my back.  My troops were in a stout MLR and I was pretty sure I could hold out for a long, long time; probably until the Western Allies were on the march so that the heat would be reduced in China.  But the Artillery Death Star blasted through my MLR, collapsed my northern flank, and ruined about twenty Chinese corps and divisions.  Since strategic bombing had destroyed my industry and supply structure, I couldn't replace my losses. 

In other words, an Artillery Death Star was the beam that broken the camel's back, severed his spine, and buried the poor critter under ninety-seven feet of cellulose.

The air war in China is also a problem that ultimately contributed to my demise.  The AVG fights well but the units can't be replaced, so it attrits down to nothing very quickly.  The Japanese can then concentrate on bombing airfields and sweeping any remaining Allied fighters and that clears the skies over China. Broken down airplanes can't be repaired due to low supply and they get stranded at airfields that are pummeled every day by Japanese bombers. You can't base fighters at more remote bases because they have very short legs and thus won't reach the front lines. The air war in WitP was very tough in China, but in AE it's impossible.

I think I'm a decent player.  In my two WitP games I really didn't have any problems holding China against experienced opponents. I held Changsha and Sian throughout both games. But China is a mess in AE and my AE opponent is one of those I faced in WitP.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The developers aren't going to react solely based upon my observations, but it's just one bit of information they'll consider.  If it turns out I'm an anomaly, they'll have every reason to disregard my results.  If it turns out what's going on is an accurate reflection of the game as a whole then I know changes will be made.

I was defending well in China until the appearance of the Artillery Death Star.  Even the strategic bombing hadn't broken my back.  My troops were in a stout MLR and I was pretty sure I could hold out for a long, long time; probably until the Western Allies were on the march so that the heat would be reduced in China.  But the Artillery Death Star blasted through my MLR, collapsed my northern flank, and ruine about twenty Chinese corps and divisions.  Since strategic bombing had ruined my industry and supply structure, I couldn't replace my losses. 

In other words, an Artillery Death Star was the beam that broken the camel's back, severed his spine, and buried the poor critter under ninety-seven feet of cellulose.

The air war in China is also a problem that ultimately contributed to my demise.  The AVG fights well but the units can't be replaced, so it attrits down to nothing very quickly.  The Japanese can then concentrate on bombing airfields and sweeping any remaining Allied fighters and that clears the skies over Japan.

I think I'm a decent player.  In my two WitP games I had no problem holding China against experienced opponents.  But China is a mess in AE.

It was a mess in real life to, though I doubt that is much consolation. The problem is most likely the stacking. The post patch supply sitation seems to be a problem as well, but I can't really comment on it as I have yet to patch it.

As far as the air stuff goes, in real life the units had to either reform or pull back to bases in Burma to rebuild, not unrealistic, but for the game it can become a huge problem. In the real war, the reinforcements would arrive in Burma/India then simply be flown in to the receiving unit via ferry mission.

I'm starting to wonder if a stacking limit for all terrain types isn't the best solution, tbh. They tried to fix it with the supply routing, and from the reports of players it seems to have created an even larger problem.

Well artillery was actually used to disrupt enemy defense, not to kill him.
Covering approaches, disrupting telephone cables, keeping enemy soldiers head down, obscuring field of fire, using smoke to limit enemy visibility, his forward oservers and so on.

So to me effects of sustained artillery fire (bombardment) is to cause disruption and limit enemy efficiency - actually fatigue and morale in game terms, not to kill and disrupt squads. However I dont know if this can be changed in actual witp-combat.

ORIGINAL: Barb

Well artillery was actually used to disrupt enemy defense, not to kill him.
Covering approaches, disrupting telephone cables, keeping enemy soldiers head down, obscuring field of fire, using smoke to limit enemy visibility, his forward oservers and so on.

So to me effects of sustained artillery fire (bombardment) is to cause disruption and limit enemy efficiency - actually fatigue and morale in game terms, not to kill and disrupt squads. However I dont know if this can be changed in actual witp-combat.

I wonder, does disabling squads accurately represent the items in bold? Disabled squads do repair quickly with supply, while destroyed ones take a while.

Just from my own testing the real killer is the medium regiments i.e. the 10cm's and allied Medium Arty Bns.
 
Smaller calibre Arty does an ok job but doesnt kill to much its the the big guns in the medium arty regiments that hurt the japanese 15cm guns, CW 5.5" and 4.5" guns and the US 155mm's
 
These are the real killers especially when massed against a big stack.
 
If I was going to recommend a house rule it would be no more than one or two big gun indpt regt per hex the damage difference from having three or four of these in one hex is dramatic.
 
So a Div that them organically is fine and no more than one or two Indpt Regts.
 
 

Although high level forts protect against even these guns.
 
The losses suffered against 15cm guns when in the open/lvl 0 forts and heavy jungle/lvl 6 forts is dramatic.
 
Andy

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Although high level forts protect against even these guns.

The losses suffered against 15cm guns when in the open/lvl 0 forts and heavy jungle/lvl 6 forts is dramatic.

Andy

Canoerebel posted in his first post that he had nearly level 9 forts and IMO in this case he shouldn´t suffer at all from artillery. Disruption yes, hundreds of squads killed? Sure not. It always was in WITP and it seems still to be true in AE that forts are very poorly reflected comparing to real life. Imagine those "crappy" Japanese artillery pieces doing a bombardment of the Maginot line (with 8.76 fort I guess we could compare it with the Maginot line, even though this probably would be a 9 then). For sure the Allied casualties would not even be 1% of what Canourebel´s Chinese suffer. Of course you couldn´t stuck hundreds of thousands Chinese into the Maginot line either and you wouldn´t be able to build it in a couple of months like the Chinese have built their level 8.76. IMO with this fortification in Canourebel´s example the Chinese shouldn´t suffer more than 600 casualties (combined killed and disabled - mostly disabled).

All in all, IMO not artillery is the thing that isn´t working at all, it always was and still is the fortification that is a complete mess in WITP and AE. The changes in AE made it a little bit better but it´s still completely off.

Fortifications should help as they helped in real life and they should be as hard to build as in real life. Level 9? Use hundreds of eng squads to build a level 9 fort and it should take three years, so perhaps when you reach the later stages of the war you could encounter such fortifications. In 42? Doubtful when you start building in Dec 41.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The developers aren't going to react solely based upon my observations, but it's just one bit of information they'll consider.  If it turns out I'm an anomaly, they'll have every reason to disregard my results.  If it turns out what's going on is an accurate reflection of the game as a whole then I know changes will be made.

I was defending well in China until the appearance of the Artillery Death Star.  Even the strategic bombing hadn't broken my back.  My troops were in a stout MLR and I was pretty sure I could hold out for a long, long time; probably until the Western Allies were on the march so that the heat would be reduced in China.  But the Artillery Death Star blasted through my MLR, collapsed my northern flank, and ruined about twenty Chinese corps and divisions.  Since strategic bombing had destroyed my industry and supply structure, I couldn't replace my losses. 

In other words, an Artillery Death Star was the beam that broken the camel's back, severed his spine, and buried the poor critter under ninety-seven feet of cellulose.

The air war in China is also a problem that ultimately contributed to my demise.  The AVG fights well but the units can't be replaced, so it attrits down to nothing very quickly.  The Japanese can then concentrate on bombing airfields and sweeping any remaining Allied fighters and that clears the skies over China. Broken down airplanes can't be repaired due to low supply and they get stranded at airfields that are pummeled every day by Japanese bombers. You can't base fighters at more remote bases because they have very short legs and thus won't reach the front lines. The air war in WitP was very tough in China, but in AE it's impossible.

I think I'm a decent player.  In my two WitP games I really didn't have any problems holding China against experienced opponents. I held Changsha and Sian throughout both games. But China is a mess in AE and my AE opponent is one of those I faced in WitP.

Got it. Artillery death star is a problem for you in China. Message understood very clearly.

I'm not yet convinced that it is a problem in mine or that many others to merit developer recoding and persistent 'tweaking'. I think this situation is amenable for HRs first and foremost. Considering the noble efforts of the devs to rise to the fore and 'tweak' the game to suit the needs of those that are most outspoken, it is probably worth noting that your gameplay experiences here may not result in a satisfactory conclusion for yourself without significantly altering gameplay (for the worse) with others.

Unfortunately, once the 'nerf' pendulum starts swinging, it takes some time to find the right center without overcompensating. How many iterations of BB bombardment and B-17 bombardment did the stock WiTP go through? Many would say that these issues are still not satisfactorily modeled to their taste.

@Andy Mac: I like your suggestion of an interim HR involving restrictions on the heavy guns. I would much rather try out different HRs than have coding iteration upon iteration that will likely result in unintended consequences. Or at least until a more holistic solution can be found.

@Canoerebel: I have been reticent to overcommit the IJA airforce to China. If I use it there, it will not be available for me elsewhere, including the SRA, New Guinea, Australia or Burma theatres. I use my comparatively small IJ Chinese airforce to bomb and harass Chinese units still behind the lines for the most part. If your opponent is using the IJA airforce in quantity in China, consider yourself fortunate that he's bottled them up there. He's likely very short elsewhere.

My experiences about the 'impossibility' of the air war in China in AE do not align with yours, apparently. I've seen no indication in my game that the air war in China is an impossibility *when both players use some historic restraint in their persecution of the war*.

Are you PBEM?  I'm hearing similar concerns by other PBEMers, with the possible exception of those who have imposed house rules.

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

Are you PBEM?  I'm hearing similar concerns by other PBEMers, with the possible exception of those who have imposed house rules.

.
No USSHenrico or Crimguy please.....
.
.
.
.
.






Yes, I'm PBEM (x2) as IJ versus USSHenrico and Crimguy (Allied).

To be fair, your (and other) PBEM AAR 'heads up' re: this issue stoked these conversations and encouraged me to continue to have them. I've been keeping in very close communication with my PBEM partners throughout all of these sieges and altering my activities accordingly. We haven't had that many sieges yet, as we are earlier in our game (one day turns).

Versus USSHenrico, one siege that we just wrapped up (January 1942) involved the Loyang / Nanang and Chusien (?) (at work-no map) triangle. This was my number one goal from day one. I prepped all units for these points and used a large number of infantry regiments, HQ, armored units and all available divisions at this schwerpunkt. I brought a small number (3 regiment and 1 battalion) of independent artillery as well. Early in the game (before this issue was widely recognized), I bought out one unit of the heavy artillery from Kwantung for use in this seige warfare.

I had overwhelming AV force at the first offensive point (Chusien), yet it held for 2-3 days. The Chinese retreated to Loyang (North 2 hexes). I rested / reorganized for a couple days to get disruption and fatigue down and then moved.

Bombardment at Loyang resulted in heavy casualties (1700-2000/day) for a few days (3?) before two days of assault broke the defense and routed the Chinese defenders. HOWEVER:

1. Many units here had retreated from the Chusien fight and were undoubtedly fatigued and / or disrupted.
2. I don't know about the Chinese supply situation, but I doubt there was adequate Chinese supply to support a spirited defense.
3. Huge differences in troop experience, leadership.
4. Early in the war for us. Fortification levels were no higher than 3 (Chusien) or 2 (Loyang).
5. Open terrain for both cities.
6. Much of the IJA artillery fire was from organic division or regimental organic artillery rather than independent artillery battalions or regiments.

Now that I've fractured the Loyang / Nanang line, and secured this sector's resource bases, I will suspend offensive operations in Eastern China. I'm not intending to drive on Sian and / or Chungking, but wouldn't mind my partners thinking that I'm capable of doing that.

I will be investing Singapore within the week and have started a seige on Bataan. Both have larger number of independent artillery battalions or regiments than did the Loyang / Nanang salient. So far, my partner has not cried foul, but if things look way out of whack, I'll hold myself back. Bataan is borderline, we'll see how Singapore goes.

I am willing to titer force to effect to meet the expectations of my partners. I have no desire to drive on Chungking in December 1942 or to break the interface and make my partner(s) miserable. There are some things that are outright gamey that have occured in some AARs that I've seen here that I would never inflict upon my partner nor tolerate were they done unto me. But this about partner communication first (and, yes, HRs) and recoding / code 'tweaking' second, IMO.

Thanks, Chickenboy.   You need to start an AAR as it would be interesting to get another AAR from the Japanese perspective. 

ORIGINAL: FatR

In my, admittedly limited experience, artillery deathstars are only a problem when one side has a ton of arty, and the other has next to none. Only if enemy is completely outgunned and cannot effectively fire back, the situation devolves from siege to massacre. I have no problem with that. The side that is completely inferior in artillery (and cannot compensate by naval bombardements, huge air attacks, etc) should suffer unsurmountable disadvantage in hex-contesting battles of attrition, one way or another, to reflect realities of WW II battlefields. It simply has no means to save itself from having its defences gradually picked apart. The problem with bombardement lies in low supply requirements, which allow to use it turn after turn, until artillery units are too fatigued, even on unimportant targets. So bombarding is no-brainer and you don't need to bother with picking, where you really need your artillery. And supplying extended campaigns in China is too easy for Japanese in general.

The problem is not that there is an advantage to the side with much better arty, the problem is time. The time factor is skewed horribly. If the weaker side has insufficient supply/reinforcements, they will lose eventually - but unrealistic arty casualties make that happen much more quickly, which can decisively change what is happening in the campaign. If the weaker side does have sufficient supply/reinforcements, then they might hold - but unrealistic arty casualties make them break.

Regarding fortifications - just as an example, what did artillery do to the defenders on some of the heavily fortified islands like Iwo Jima and Okinawa? What level would those IRL forts be considered in-game?