Matrix Games Forums

In my PBEM (whenever it starts) we've decided on a maximum of 5 artillery units in a hex.

Do you also have an infantry limit. A lot of the damage to me in Sian is being done by all the infantry in the hex. 9000+ AV doesnt include separate artillery units but they do have a lot of cannons.

No, but neither of us is cutthroat, especially in the China Theater.  That theater is a necessary evil we have to endure. [:D] If that doesn't work, we'll try something else.

ORIGINAL: Whisper
This is why I think there should be a cut off for hex to hex combat. To cut off the weird exponent effect.

I think an upper limit of 8 division equivalents max that could defend would be reasonable, but only half that amount should be allowed to attack a hex on any single day. All other units in a hex would be forced into reserve or rest mode, so you could still stack unlimited numbers of men in a hex, it’s just they won’t all get to fight unless reserve rolls go really well.

That gives an average of 5 miles of frontage per division for defense. Sure divisions frontages could cover more or less ground if needed, but as a general rule, 5 miles seems right to me.

The 4 division equivalent attack means players would be forced to maneuver around huge stacks of troops, or spend time battering away at large defensive groups to slowly attrition them down over time.

All the above assumes nothing about the massive casualties currently being caused gets changed. If casualties are toned way down to more resemble historical realities, then I’d advocate for an equal number of division equivalents on attack as well.

But right now with the ability to basically decimate every single defending unit in just a few days, attacks need to be toned down somehow to give units the historical staying power they actually had in the real world.

Jim

In my PBEM, I had around 1200 AV worth of troops in Chengchow, and level 3 forts, as of Dec 27th, 1941. Most had just arrived, hadn't had time to rest them up or anything, they were all in the 35-45 morale range. Japan moved about 1800 AV over the river into Chengchow hex, initiating a shock attack, and still did 2500 casualties to me as opposed to about 1600 for themselves. My units disruption went through the roof, and I knew I was in trouble then, but there wasn't much I could do about it. They shock attacked on 28th and 29th, and completely annihilated my disrupted, low morale units. My casualties were in the 18000ish range, most destroyed. I did destroy around 120 squads of Japanese infantry between the two attacks, but still a very lopsided victory for Japan.
 
This was all just shock attacks, no bombardments, I still got completely demolished and creamed by an army moving over a river. Completely ridiculous to think a Chinese player can remotely manage to fight in these circumstances.
 
The thing that pisses me off is how completely unrealistic all this is. Battles over cities weren't completely lop-sided, 2-3 day battles, where the defender was uprooted by a better attacker and for intents and purposes completely wiped out of existence. These results are similar to a full combined arms German Blitzkrieg when they had the enemy on the run, not the type of warfare seen in the heart of Asia between primarily infantry armies.
 
I think we're talking along the right vein with limiting number of attacking divisions. It all stands the potential of working out very well too. During my testing, I did confirm that defending units in reserve are NOT shelled by bombardments and this VASTLY reduces number of casualties; the problem is that you can't leave them all on reserve in case the attacking infantry come in. If we look at Combat mode as basically meaning all units crammed into the front in very dense formations, I guess maybe this makes some sense. So defender would have reason to leave as many units in reserve as possible when faced with threat of artillery bombardment, leaving only their "frontage" troops as targets for artillery. If attacker was limited in the number of infantry that could be brought in on deliberate or shock attack, the defender could actually afford to do this reserve setup.
 
I really like where this is going, think it has some real potential. Just need to fine-tune what the rules should be and test it out some. Would definitely make the game a lot more realistic, which I think is ultimately what most people who play want.

ORIGINAL: Whisper
LOL [:D] you need a geometry refresher there. This is a square and a hex and a circle, all 40 miles across.
The square has area of 1600 and 2116 if it was 46 miles across.
The circle has area of 1256.6 and 1661.9 if it was 46 miles across.
The hex is somewheres between the square and the circle.

Nice diagram of a square and an octagon...[:'(]

I couldn't help it but I brushed off some math skills to figure it out, not that it is all that relevant.

40 miles point-to-point on a regular hexagon. Regular is good news as I can start breaking up the hexagon into 6 equilateral triangles with 20 mile sides. Edge side length (t) is 20 miles. Plop that into a formula A = 3√3/2 t² -> 2.598076211*20² = 1039.23

Regular is good news as I can start breaking up the hexagon into 6 equilateral triangles with 20 mile sides.

Aren't the sides 40/SQRT(3)? (in nm)