Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
Gridley380
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:24 pm

RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

Post by Gridley380 »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

The US gets massive combat engineer reinforcements beginning in the Summer of 1945, but they can get quickly chewed up against hard targets.

True, though I've yet to see a scenario that provided ALL the Engineer Combat Battalions (or equivalent) from the ETO. Of course the US wouldn't have sent everything... unless they were, say, running out of bodies on the front line.

The US also reformed a wide variety of other combat units as combat engineers as the war went on.

It should be REALLY hard to run out of US combat engineers.
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

Post by Canoerebel »

It should be hard to run out of a lot of things, like fighters and bombers and patrol aircraft and recon planes and tankers and assault shipping and a host of other things, but the game eats through things in ways that real life wouldn't have caused or permitted. But that's our game, and we love it.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19241
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

Post by RangerJoe »

Bloody and bloodier . . .
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child


Image
User avatar
jdsrae
Posts: 2796
Joined: Mon Mar 01, 2010 6:58 am
Location: Gandangara Country

RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

Post by jdsrae »

Just read recently that infantry was the branch that ran out of replacements IRL.
Google research of Stilwell led me to Army Ground Forces which I found interesting when it got to discussing TOE changes and replacement rates.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_Ground_Forces

I get why players want to try and capture the map, as a challenge / to see if it can be done, but these sorts of casualties would have ended democratically elected governments pretty quickly.
The alternative to the A bomb would have to have been a naval blockade for an extended period of time, leading to a change of government in Japan that would have come to the table for talks. How long would that have taken though...
Currently playing my first PBEM, no house rules Scenario 1 as IJ.
AAR link (no SolInvictus): https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4684655
Ian R
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cammeraygal Country

RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

Post by Ian R »

ORIGINAL: jwolf

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I've been merciless about destroying every Japanese unit so I likely have only myself to blame for that 753 LCU stack in Tokyo!

Ditto here, though I am not as advanced as Hans. My game is in Feb 45 with the front line at Beijing, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima. Every Jap unit south of this line has been wiped out. So I fear that I will run into exactly the same problem with a mega-stack at Tokyo and maybe also at a few other major bases within Japan itself. Ugh.

You get that mega stack in 1947/48 in my mod. Personally, I like to take everything on the map and then go for Tokyo.

Using the latest beta, it is not clear that the AI does replace all the eliminated ground units.

But anyway, if you have a look at the specifics, you have killed a lot of the good leaders (ironman 3 has plenty though), and those units tend to be low exp, low morale, and low on heavy equipmnet.

So - taking Tokyo:

1. Rotating BB bombardments, 3-4 BBs per TF. Yokosuka -> Tokyo. Lots of AEs etc in Yokosuka. Massive Cargo TFs from SFO dumping millions of supplies in there.

2. 1000 plane 4E raids at 6000 ft on ground strike. B29Bs preferred. Medium bombers/attack bombers at 2000ft. Fighter bombers at 100 ft. This is after you bomb the light industry and refineries to zero. You can either rotate the groups, or just put them all on 50% rest and let them have at it.

3(a). Put every tank unit you have (Soviet included) in there, and shock attack with them only. Everything else bombards. Also put lots of HQs with support squads to repair your broken tanks.

3(b). If those tank units have infantry elements - stockpile those in the device screen, only replace the tanks.

4. When the numbers look right (yes you will have to sit for 40 minutes reading them on the combat animation screen, maybe after a month) switch the infantry to shock attack. If it doesn't work, then the infantry go back to bombard for a couple of weeks before having another crack at it.
"I am Alfred"
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19241
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

Post by RangerJoe »

Another way to clear the soft devices out of tank units is to transport them out, either by air and/or APD. No need to stockpile then. Then if the tanks are destroyed, you still have part of the unit to become the parent and take replacements. So put the partial unit somewhere with lots of HQs and supplies.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child


Image
Uncivil Engineer
Posts: 1292
Joined: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:56 pm
Location: Florida, USA

RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

Post by Uncivil Engineer »

And still people ask why did we nuke them. This shows why.
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19241
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

Post by RangerJoe »

They were training their school children to attack the enemies with bamboo spears. Do you think that the US Marines would have tried to take the spears away and spank those children?
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child


Image
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7457
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: Ian R
ORIGINAL: jwolf

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I've been merciless about destroying every Japanese unit so I likely have only myself to blame for that 753 LCU stack in Tokyo!

Ditto here, though I am not as advanced as Hans. My game is in Feb 45 with the front line at Beijing, Okinawa, and Iwo Jima. Every Jap unit south of this line has been wiped out. So I fear that I will run into exactly the same problem with a mega-stack at Tokyo and maybe also at a few other major bases within Japan itself. Ugh.

You get that mega stack in 1947/48 in my mod. Personally, I like to take everything on the map and then go for Tokyo.

Using the latest beta, it is not clear that the AI does replace all the eliminated ground units.

But anyway, if you have a look at the specifics, you have killed a lot of the good leaders (ironman 3 has plenty though), and those units tend to be low exp, low morale, and low on heavy equipmnet.

So - taking Tokyo:

1. Rotating BB bombardments, 3-4 BBs per TF. Yokosuka -> Tokyo. Lots of AEs etc in Yokosuka. Massive Cargo TFs from SFO dumping millions of supplies in there.

2. 1000 plane 4E raids at 6000 ft on ground strike. B29Bs preferred. Medium bombers/attack bombers at 2000ft. Fighter bombers at 100 ft. This is after you bomb the light industry and refineries to zero. You can either rotate the groups, or just put them all on 50% rest and let them have at it.

3(a). Put every tank unit you have (Soviet included) in there, and shock attack with them only. Everything else bombards. Also put lots of HQs with support squads to repair your broken tanks.

3(b). If those tank units have infantry elements - stockpile those in the device screen, only replace the tanks.

4. When the numbers look right (yes you will have to sit for 40 minutes reading them on the combat animation screen, maybe after a month) switch the infantry to shock attack. If it doesn't work, then the infantry go back to bombard for a couple of weeks before having another crack at it.


Good techniques I will not have time to implement before the game ends on March 31, 1946.

I can't get your scenario to load. It hangs up in the middle of loading. May be my marginal computer can't handle the huge database.

I may not be able to complete this game.

On the January 25, 1946 turn I stated seeing text characters dropping out randomly from every game interface.
I reran the Jan 24th turn to get a new Jan 25th save and it started doing it again.
I have now rerun the Jan 24th turn two more times creating new Jan 25th saves and every time as I start issuing orders text starts dropping out.

Whatever is corrupting the save game is doing it consistently.
Do saved games increase in size as time goes by?
Have I hit a limit?

Discouraging that I came so close to actually playing a scenario to completion only to come up short dues to a technical failure.
Hans

User avatar
Gridley380
Posts: 464
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 10:24 pm

RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

Post by Gridley380 »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

It should be hard to run out of a lot of things, like fighters and bombers and patrol aircraft and recon planes and tankers and assault shipping and a host of other things, but the game eats through things in ways that real life wouldn't have caused or permitted. But that's our game, and we love it.

True. :-)
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19241
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

Post by RangerJoe »

Hans, when that happens to me I shut down the game and then restart. I runs fine then. I might also help if you have something like CCleaner to clean up any junk files.
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child


Image
Ian R
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cammeraygal Country

RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

Post by Ian R »

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


Discouraging that I came so close to actually playing a scenario to completion only to come up short dues to a technical failure.

I can only suggest going into your task manager before loading the game, and turning off everything non-essential - which includes the internet and wifi stuff. Or using a USB drive to act as additional RAM. Or both.

My recently new machine with about 8 gig of RAM, etc, loads it OK after I turn all the rubbish off.
"I am Alfred"
User avatar
RangerJoe
Posts: 19241
Joined: Mon Nov 16, 2015 2:39 pm
Location: Who knows?

RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

Post by RangerJoe »

My Dell with 4 Gigs of RAM runs it fine with Firefox running. But turn off IE or Edge since they seem to take priority over all other programs which slows everything down. I don't know why Microsoft will have Microsoft Internet Exploder and/or Microsoft Edge have priority over all other programs. I just don't understand their reasoning . . .
Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing! :o

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
:twisted: ; Julia Child


Image
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7457
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

Post by HansBolter »

The game has run fine on this minimal machine for over 1500 turns of this scenario.

Map scrolling is a little slow and game saves take a long time, but other than that I had no performance issues until this current turn.

Will try all the things suggested.
Hans

User avatar
traskott
Posts: 1577
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

Post by traskott »

Hans, im playing an iroman tier 3 too, and having lot of trouble to keep my sealanes open, too much raiders and surprise attacks. how could you do it in your game? Thanks
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7457
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: traskott

Hans, im playing an iroman tier 3 too, and having lot of trouble to keep my sealanes open, too much raiders and surprise attacks. how could you do it in your game? Thanks


It's been a couple of years in game time since I had to deal with that so you are taxing my memory a little here.

Yes, the tier 3 Ironman AI is very aggressive in raiding the sealanes and gets lots of armed merchant cruisers that are easily capable of taking out CLs.

I was purposely passive with my carriers, not wanting to break the AI early, so I didn't go raiding with them and primarily used them to cover invasions once I started moving forward. During the early game when the sealanes were getting raided heavily I used them to patrol the sealanes and hunt down raiders, be they armed merchant cruisers, small surface combat TFs or carriers. I also stationed light surface TFs, mostly CL/DD TFs at various supply path waypoints and used them to patrol and react along the sealanes.
Hans

Ian R
Posts: 3440
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Cammeraygal Country

RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

Post by Ian R »

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

I also stationed light surface TFs, mostly CL/DD TFs at various supply path waypoints and used them to patrol and react along the sealanes.


Put SBD groups on islands along your supply route and give it complete "air zoc" coverage. Akagi Maru problem minimised.

"I am Alfred"
User avatar
traskott
Posts: 1577
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

Post by traskott »

They intercept my convoys out of SBDs cover, plus the A6M-S and Lindas eat my ships for breakfast. Even when I put an strongpoint, the cover of the convoys in the places where there is no cover is troublesome. Besides with those uberAMCs or put CV as escorts or my CA/CLs got suni kickly..
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7457
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

Post by HansBolter »

Next Up: Nagoya.

Also Heavy Urban with level 9 forts, but less stoutly defended than Osaka:

Ground combat at Nagoya (111,60)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 134468 troops, 2156 guns, 3424 vehicles, Assault Value = 4449

Defending force 83721 troops, 954 guns, 457 vehicles, Assault Value = 1814

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 8

Allied adjusted assault: 2009

Japanese adjusted defense: 6357

Allied assault odds: 1 to 3 (fort level 8)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), disruption(-), preparation(-)
experience(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
3314 casualties reported
Squads: 31 destroyed, 232 disabled
Non Combat: 7 destroyed, 51 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 30 disabled
Guns lost 79 (5 destroyed, 74 disabled)
Vehicles lost 59 (9 destroyed, 50 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
6888 casualties reported
Squads: 34 destroyed, 477 disabled
Non Combat: 12 destroyed, 172 disabled
Engineers: 21 destroyed, 192 disabled
Guns lost 148 (14 destroyed, 134 disabled)
Vehicles lost 291 (26 destroyed, 265 disabled)

Assaulting units:
779th Tank Battalion
III Corps Engr Grp
13th Armored Division
XIV Corps Engr Grp
7th Infantry Division
Provisionl Tank Brigade
719th Flame Tank Battalion
632nd Tank Destroyer Battalion
IV Corps Engineer Battalion
1st Regt de Cheval Regiment
640th Tank Destroyer Battalion
754th Tank Battalion
XVIII Corps Eng Grp
VII Corps Engr Grp
2nd British Division
XXXIII Corps Engineer Battalion
32nd Infantry Division
25th Indian Division
6th Infantry Division
93rd Infantry Division
Groupement Massu Brigade
18th British Division
8th Indian Division
148th Field Artillery Battalion
443rd Field Artillery Battalion

Defending units:
10th Garrison Division
119th Ind.Mixed Brigade
8th Ind.Tank Brigade
38th Ind.Mixed Brigade
303rd Division
73rd Division
100th Division
143rd Division
120th Ind.Mixed Brigade
19th JAAF AF Bn
51st Air Division
125th AA Regiment
Nagoya Fortress
97th Field AA Battalion
13th Area Army
98th Field AA Battalion
37th Ind. Hvy.Art. Battalion
38th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
Tokai JNAF Base Force
54th Army
12th Machine Canno AA Battalion
7th Imperial AA Division
106th Machine Canno AA Battalion
Gifu JAAF Base Force
Hans

User avatar
traskott
Posts: 1577
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 8:30 am
Location: Valladolid, Spain

RE: Cost of Heavy Urban Level 9 Fort Reduction

Post by traskott »

How are you pools?
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”