RE: More information needed...
Posted: Thu Jan 14, 2010 2:23 pm
Bullwinkle, we just had our first results with some Chinese troops on reserve status [well, first since the latest patch]: reserve status didn't help much.
To recapitulate: the Japanese are besieging Chengtah. Three or four Japanese deliberate attacks were easily repulsed, but the engineers reduced the forts from six to three. Then the Japanese began bombardments using seven artillery units. The results were grim - roughly 1000 casualites and something like 15 infantry squads and 20 non-combat squads destroyed per day. (Interestingly, these casualties were comparable to those sufferd by the Chinese when the artillery bombarded and the infantry attacked; ie, the artillery alone was comparably potent to artillery plus infantry].
I then put about 1/3rd of my 4,000 AV into reserve status. The two most recent bombardments resulted in the following:
2/26/43: 926 casualties; 11 infantry squads lost/39 damaged; 17 non-combat squads lost/63 damaged.
2/27/43: 871 casualties; 13 infantry squads lost/36 damaged; 7 non-combat squads lost/58 damaged.
I can't speak for the Japanese supply situation - perhaps the bombardments are sucking Miller dry. But to this point he's shown no decrease in attacks and bombardments, nor has he mentioned supply problems.
Based on this and previous data, here are my conclusions and questions:
1. Massed artillery against well-entrenched troops (six to nine forts) operates reasonably.
2. Massed artillery against non-entrenched troops or troops behind up to three forts is too bloody, meaning either the fire is too effective or the aggressor can bring too many to bear at a time in a single hex.
3. I have no information on the effectiveness of level four and five fortifications, yet.
4. Putting troops on reserve status has little effect on bombardment casulties.
5. Has the tweaks to the artillery model to dampen the effect of massed artillery had a detrimental effect on the employment of "un-massed" artillery (some players are complaining that the use of one or two units has too little effect).
6. In the long run, does supply usage make the use of massed artillery too costly? [That could be a possible solution, but I have no data on which to draw any conclusions; Miller might shed some light on this; my hunch is that the answer is "no" since he continues to liberally bombard in China]
To recapitulate: the Japanese are besieging Chengtah. Three or four Japanese deliberate attacks were easily repulsed, but the engineers reduced the forts from six to three. Then the Japanese began bombardments using seven artillery units. The results were grim - roughly 1000 casualites and something like 15 infantry squads and 20 non-combat squads destroyed per day. (Interestingly, these casualties were comparable to those sufferd by the Chinese when the artillery bombarded and the infantry attacked; ie, the artillery alone was comparably potent to artillery plus infantry].
I then put about 1/3rd of my 4,000 AV into reserve status. The two most recent bombardments resulted in the following:
2/26/43: 926 casualties; 11 infantry squads lost/39 damaged; 17 non-combat squads lost/63 damaged.
2/27/43: 871 casualties; 13 infantry squads lost/36 damaged; 7 non-combat squads lost/58 damaged.
I can't speak for the Japanese supply situation - perhaps the bombardments are sucking Miller dry. But to this point he's shown no decrease in attacks and bombardments, nor has he mentioned supply problems.
Based on this and previous data, here are my conclusions and questions:
1. Massed artillery against well-entrenched troops (six to nine forts) operates reasonably.
2. Massed artillery against non-entrenched troops or troops behind up to three forts is too bloody, meaning either the fire is too effective or the aggressor can bring too many to bear at a time in a single hex.
3. I have no information on the effectiveness of level four and five fortifications, yet.
4. Putting troops on reserve status has little effect on bombardment casulties.
5. Has the tweaks to the artillery model to dampen the effect of massed artillery had a detrimental effect on the employment of "un-massed" artillery (some players are complaining that the use of one or two units has too little effect).
6. In the long run, does supply usage make the use of massed artillery too costly? [That could be a possible solution, but I have no data on which to draw any conclusions; Miller might shed some light on this; my hunch is that the answer is "no" since he continues to liberally bombard in China]