Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

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.

Can you pont out the AARs and approximate page #s? I need to see 10,000-15,000 KIA in a Level 6 Fort in a week from 4e bombing alone. It would help if it were a two-sided AAR so perhaps we could correlate to supply level, op mode, etc.

If it happens in AARs I'll be a believer. I have never seen anything even close ot this in any bombing attack I've made in a game. I'd like to see what I'm doing wrong.

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: Alfred



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.

McRib is made from horse??? No wonder they taste so good! [:D]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

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.

I suppose that we should all go vegan because there's no ingredients used in that production or storage that aren't vegetable, right? [8|]

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

ORIGINAL: witpqs



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.

McRib is made from horse??? No wonder they taste so good! [:D]

If prepared well (ummm...medium rare actually), horse is quite tasty. My advice is to avoid the kumis, however. [X(]

ORIGINAL: USS America
McRib is made from horse??? No wonder they taste so good! [:D]

No. Cat.

[:)]

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I suppose that we should all go vegan because there's no ingredients used in that production or storage that aren't vegetable, right? [8|]

Hey, I like meat as much as the next guy, but I draw a line at Hush Puppy.

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I suppose that we should all go vegan because there's no ingredients used in that production or storage that aren't vegetable, right? [8|]

Hey!!!!!! Plants are lifeforms too. All nutrient intake should be by IV drip. [:D]

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510


...

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

Hm, I am quite sure mountains need longer to grow than 90 years

--

I think we can all agree that McRibs are borked. [:D]

I think Pax and I were concerned about several incidents in PzB vs Andy's campaign, specifically the rapid reduction of Christmas Island (Pacific), an atoll with level 6 forts defended by a full division, HQ unit, smaller combat forces and support troops. CV air, massed B-29s, and the dreaded auto bombardments did the defenders in with the base captured in about a week. Now, we concede that the base would and should fall given the well played "kitchen sink" that Andy brought, but it felt like an island defended in a manner similar to Peleliu with probably similar forts (Iwo, as you say Moose, is a special case given the unique terrain) fell awfully quickly, and that the level 6 forts had little impact on the bombings.

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

I think we can all agree that McRibs are borked. [:D]

I think Pax and I were concerned about several incidents in PzB vs Andy's campaign, specifically the rapid reduction of Christmas Island (Pacific), an atoll with level 6 forts defended by a full division, HQ unit, smaller combat forces and support troops. CV air, massed B-29s, and the dreaded auto bombardments did the defenders in with the base captured in about a week. Now, we concede that the base would and should fall given the well played "kitchen sink" that Andy brought, but it felt like an island defended in a manner similar to Peleliu with probably similar forts (Iwo, as you say Moose, is a special case given the unique terrain) fell awfully quickly, and that the level 6 forts had little impact on the bombings.

But you are missing the point. Fortifications reduce the rate of hors de combat which otherwise would ensue in their absence. By themselves they don't put up a shield against a pluton torpedo. Any position which is not adequately supported, which is the subject of unremitting overwhelming enemy force, will collapse. All that forts essentially do is buy time until the cavalry arrives. No cavalry to the rescue, defeat is assured.

What you are all seeing is what has always been the historical outcome for the last 3000 years; retreats turned into routs where no fall back positions filled with fresh (relatively speaking) rearguards exist, garrisons overwhelmed where there is no field army nearby. The historical verity is just accentuated by the greater capacity of modern (for the 1944-45 era) to deliver ordnance.

Alfred

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

I think we can all agree that McRibs are borked. [:D]

I think Pax and I were concerned about several incidents in PzB vs Andy's campaign, specifically the rapid reduction of Christmas Island (Pacific), an atoll with level 6 forts defended by a full division, HQ unit, smaller combat forces and support troops. CV air, massed B-29s, and the dreaded auto bombardments did the defenders in with the base captured in about a week. Now, we concede that the base would and should fall given the well played "kitchen sink" that Andy brought, but it felt like an island defended in a manner similar to Peleliu with probably similar forts (Iwo, as you say Moose, is a special case given the unique terrain) fell awfully quickly, and that the level 6 forts had little impact on the bombings.

Yeah, what on earth is auto bombardment all about? Why can't we just sit back in the caves and defend?

ORIGINAL: Alfred

But you are missing the point. Fortifications reduce the rate of hors de combat which otherwise would ensue in their absence. By themselves they don't put up a shield against a pluton torpedo. Any position which is not adequately supported, which is the subject of unremitting overwhelming enemy force, will collapse. All that forts essentially do is buy time until the cavalry arrives. No cavalry to the rescue, defeat is assured.

What you are all seeing is what has always been the historical outcome for the last 3000 years; retreats turned into routs where no fall back positions filled with fresh (relatively speaking) rearguards exist, garrisons overwhelmed where there is no field army nearby. The historical verity is just accentuated by the greater capacity of modern (for the 1944-45 era) to deliver ordnance.

But not very much time. How many people have seen a land battle at a base in WITP go for several weeks, a month, or even 6 months like Guadalcanal? Well, I saw it once in my game (only). Went about 4 months I think at Port Blair. In just about every other landing the allies conducted against me, the base fell in 1-2 days tops, and all Japanese were eliminated from the island in less than a week. And this was with pretty high fort levels, often 4-6. This seems like a pretty high tempo of land operations. I bet it would often take more than a day to walk across some of the isldans (e.g., Guam) even if not under enemy fire.

ORIGINAL: rader

Yeah, what on earth is auto bombardment all about? Why can't we just sit back in the caves and defend?

Isn't auto-bombardment atolls-only? Makes sense - Christmas Island isn't really a Guam or even a Peleliu - the interior is primarily saline lagoon (ie no fresh water) and most of the land area is about 6-10ft above sea level - there are no caves, and any holes deep enough to provide significant protection would flood. Whether or not you guys have a point regarding the speed of taking islands generally (I wouldn't know), I don't think a week is unreasonable for Christmas Island - whichever side can deny the other fresh water would 'win' in about that length of time by default, I suspect.

e: well, there might be a few caves around the westernmost part of the island - looks like you get about 30ft asl there in a couple of places. Tiny area, though - and the airfield's on the other end, 15 miles away.

ORIGINAL: rader

But not very much time. How many people have seen a land battle at a base in WITP go for several weeks, a month, or even 6 months like Guadalcanal? Well, I saw it once in my game (only). Went about 4 months I think at Port Blair. In just about every other landing the allies conducted against me, the base fell in 1-2 days tops, and all Japanese were eliminated from the island in less than a week. And this was with pretty high fort levels, often 4-6. This seems like a pretty high tempo of land operations. I bet it would often take more than a day to walk across some of the isldans (e.g., Guam) even if not under enemy fire.

I had a seige of Port Blair go for more than a year in my first game. As at Guadalcanal I couldn't get enough supply in to eject him, but, at great loss, I could get enough in to survive unitl I had CVs enough to break the seige.

I could see the Solomons going six months if PBEM players played it historically i.e. the IJN threw in the kitchen sink. See GreyJoy's game for that.

Oh, you DO see that! [:)]

The balance in various aspects of the game are ahistorical. The sub war is one; it's too ineffective in shutting down the Japanese economy in part due to the ahistorical ability to stockpile "HI" in untouchable piles. The air war for sure is another unbalanced aspect. If the Japanese had to haul avgas in precious tankers to fly from islands a lot of other aspects would have to be massivley re-balanced to avoid Allied wins in 1943. To some extent the land war is too fast in some geographies. But overall the balance is pretty good to get most games into an end phase if the players are close in ability and want to go the distance.

ORIGINAL: herwin

Just curious, because 10% hit probability comes up. Is that the distance to the 10% lethality contour? Or is that (slightly different) a 10% probability of a fragment impacting on an exposed soft target with enough energy to cause a casualty?

There are no such probabilities. What would be point in calculating distance of lethal radius for bomb? Who cares, movie makers? There are different distances for sides, front, and back of vector. Totally useless value.


What army REALLY calculates is called VULNERABLE AREA. It is defined as area (in square feet) on which the average
density of throughs and deep strikes on vertical wooden targets is 1 per 10 square feet. (deep strikes is penetration of at least ONE inch)

Example document you are seeking for:

Ministry of Supply and War Office: Military Operational Research Unit
A theory of fragmentation: comparison with observed fragmentations of service bombs and shells
Covering dates 1943
Report No: 138


Protection is listed for that much of steel plate. Values are VULNERABLE AREA in square feet.

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I suppose that we should all go vegan because there's no ingredients used in that production or storage that aren't vegetable, right? [8|]

Hey, I like meat as much as the next guy, but I draw a line at Hush Puppy.

Dunno where you live, but in my part of the world a Hush Puppy is a kid's shoe brand, and a Slush Puppy is a kids ice drink...

I hope that Hush Puppy of yours is not a hamburger because it could be quite tough if you have actually tried to eat a kids shoe by accident!!

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I could see the Solomons going six months if PBEM players played it historically i.e. the IJN threw in the kitchen sink. See GreyJoy's game for that.

Oh, you DO see that! [:)]

I meant at an individual base... oh, perhaps you mean Tulagi? Yeah, that was another one. Still not many, and it tends to be either: A) I landed enough troops to take the base the next day (or within a very few days)., or B) I didn't land enough troops to take the base without reinforcements. And I guess most players are cautious enough that it tends to be A). But I was reading about the Bouganville campaign the other day, and Japanese troops were located there until the end of the war, about a year and a half (admittedly pushed into the jungle after a few weeks or months, but still tying down troops).

Note that I'm not complaining here, just making observations [:)]

ORIGINAL: rader

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I could see the Solomons going six months if PBEM players played it historically i.e. the IJN threw in the kitchen sink. See GreyJoy's game for that.

Oh, you DO see that! [:)]

I meant at an individual base... oh, perhaps you mean Tulagi? Yeah, that was another one. Still not many, and it tends to be either: A) I landed enough troops to take the base the next day (or within a very few days)., or B) I didn't land enough troops to take the base without reinforcements. And I guess most players are cautious enough that it tends to be A). But I was reading about the Bouganville campaign the other day, and Japanese troops were located there until the end of the war, about a year and a half (admittedly pushed into the jungle after a few weeks or months, but still tying down troops).

Note that I'm not complaining here, just making observations [:)]

In a PBM I had Pago Pago hold out for almost a month.

The whole point is that when invading you use your experience to make certain you arrive with enough force to bring about a pretty quick victory. That makes your question, while quite sincere, moot.

In the case above my opponent had no expectation that I had already gotten in place the amount of forces and defenses which were there.

ORIGINAL: bk19@mweb.co.za

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

I suppose that we should all go vegan because there's no ingredients used in that production or storage that aren't vegetable, right? [8|]

Hey, I like meat as much as the next guy, but I draw a line at Hush Puppy.

Dunno where you live, but in my part of the world a Hush Puppy is a kid's shoe brand, and a Slush Puppy is a kids ice drink...

I hope that Hush Puppy of yours is not a hamburger because it could be quite tough if you have actually tried to eat a kids shoe by accident!!

Here Hush Puppies are (or certainly were) also an adult shoe. Of course the only adults I ever saw wearing them were derided for it (ironically that was not very adult!).

He's talking slang for some kind of food item, but scientists have yet to agree if it is really food!