Will Chungking Hold? Place your bets!

[RUPD3658]

Deliberate attacks seem to be the way to go from here:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 02/27/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Chungking

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 827648 troops, 6186 guns, 1549 vehicles, Assault Value = 11822

Defending force 261359 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 8686

Japanese max assault: 11391 - adjusted assault: 2737

Allied max defense: 7025 - adjusted defense: 1657

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 6)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 5


Japanese ground losses:
55229 casualties reported
Guns lost 793
Vehicles lost 57

Allied ground losses:
2890 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 02/28/44


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Chungking

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 742438 troops, 5033 guns, 1457 vehicles, Assault Value = 8369

Defending force 257612 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 8472

Japanese max assault: 3055 - adjusted assault: 1840

Allied max defense: 6770 - adjusted defense: 1481

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 5)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 4


Japanese ground losses:
28748 casualties reported
Guns lost 229
Vehicles lost 66

Allied ground losses:
3117 casualties reported

The defender's AV seems to be holding steady and I am not killing off many units. I lost 64 VP worth of LCUs in the attacks which is far better than what I suffered in the shock attack.

[USSAmerica]

Chuck, if your deliberate attacks are dropping his forts, you're in business. 

[RUPD3658]

Having noticed that my tank units were in much better shape than my INF units I tried shock attacking with the tanks and deliberate attacking with the INF. The theory was that the defenders must not have many anti-tank weapons so I could get an AV bump by having the tanks shock attack. This apparantly causes the whole attack to be treated as a shock attack. It is hard to determine the true number of units lost since one of my bases got pounded by BBs this turn. LCU VPs lost (with the bombardment) were 72 of which up to 40-50 could have been from the bombardment elsewhere. This would be in line with the INF units not shocking but it is hard to prove.

Missed 1:1 on day 2 by less than 40 points (3%) and yet the 3,000 engineers did not lower the forts.[:@]



AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/03/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Chungking

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 768003 troops, 5325 guns, 1406 vehicles, Assault Value = 7942

Defending force 252992 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 8347

Japanese max assault: 7099 - adjusted assault: 1862

Allied max defense: 6720 - adjusted defense: 1433

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 4)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 3


Japanese ground losses:
38727 casualties reported
Guns lost 347
Vehicles lost 101

Allied ground losses:
2299 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/04/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Chungking

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 723677 troops, 4916 guns, 1272 vehicles, Assault Value = 5293

Defending force 248747 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 8157

Japanese max assault: 2334 - adjusted assault: 1224

Allied max defense: 6546 - adjusted defense: 1261

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 3)


Japanese ground losses:
17895 casualties reported
Guns lost 97
Vehicles lost 50

Allied ground losses:
3416 casualties reported

[qgaliana]

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658

This apparantly causes the whole attack to be treated as a shock attack.

It reports 'shock attack' but your losses are in line with a deliberate, no? I mix attacks fairly often, and the deliberate/bombardment units wear much less - I think it just has the one line of text to say what kind of attack is being launched, but the units attack in different modes.

[Dino]

Not sure if mixing attacks is a good idea. They may be attacking in different modes in the LAST phase of combat resolution, BUT...

Defensive fire (which is a first step in combat resolution) is doubled against ALL attackers units even if only one of them is conducting a shock attack.

[RUPD3658]

Two more deliberate attacks lower the fort level to 1. The defending troops do not seem to be getting any weaker even with their fort level being lowered.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/09/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Chungking

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 748207 troops, 4902 guns, 1312 vehicles, Assault Value = 6907

Defending force 247453 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 8188

Japanese max assault: 6410 - adjusted assault: 1361

Allied max defense: 6601 - adjusted defense: 1273

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 3)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 2


Japanese ground losses:
32048 casualties reported
Guns lost 148
Vehicles lost 51

Allied ground losses:
4133 casualties reported

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/10/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Chungking

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 704680 troops, 4752 guns, 1252 vehicles, Assault Value = 4275

Defending force 243674 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 8010

Japanese max assault: 1758 - adjusted assault: 1208

Allied max defense: 6442 - adjusted defense: 1125

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 2)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 1


Japanese ground losses:
19430 casualties reported
Guns lost 16
Vehicles lost 32

Allied ground losses:
2704 casualties reported

[tsimmonds]

The defending troops do not seem to be getting any weaker even with their fort level being lowered.

They must be near maxxed out on disablement, disruption and fatigue. They don't get weaker because they already are as weak as they can be.

My Q is, what's up with IJA's AV?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/09/44

Japanese max assault: 6410 - adjusted assault: 1361

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/10/44

Japanese max assault: 1758 - adjusted assault: 1208

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

The defending troops do not seem to be getting any weaker even with their fort level being lowered.

They must be near maxxed out on disablement, disruption and fatigue. They don't get weaker because they already are as weak as they can be.

My Q is, what's up with IJA's AV?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/09/44

Japanese max assault: 6410 - adjusted assault: 1361

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/10/44

Japanese max assault: 1758 - adjusted assault: 1208

It's also useful to compare the numbers to the previous sets of numbers from 3/3 and 3/4 ... I think you'll notice about a 150 point drop in mAV for the defender from 3/3 to 3/9...which is more than 10%

[RUPD3658]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

My Q is, what's up with IJA's AV?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/09/44

Japanese max assault: 6410 - adjusted assault: 1361

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/10/44

Japanese max assault: 1758 - adjusted assault: 1208

Got me. Their supply is even to 180% so I would expect a 50% drop. They are 100% prepped, in range of tons of HQs, and have exp ratings in the 90s. Even their fatigue is only in the 20s-30s. Morale is in the 80-90 range.

[qgaliana]

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

My Q is, what's up with IJA's AV?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/09/44

Japanese max assault: 6410 - adjusted assault: 1361

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/10/44

Japanese max assault: 1758 - adjusted assault: 1208

Got me. Their supply is even to 180% so I would expect a 50% drop. They are 100% prepped, in range of tons of HQs, and have exp ratings in the 90s. Even their fatigue is only in the 20s-30s. Morale is in the 80-90 range.

Defensive firepower causing disruption maybe? Like much in WITP seems everyone on the defending side may be getting their licks in. Someone mentioned some units might break off the attack?

[Nikademus]

If prep for the defender and attacker are equal, (in this case , Chungking (100)), the advantage for that variable goes to the defender.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

If prep for the defender and attacker are equal, (in this case , Chungking (100)), the advantage for that variable goes to the defender.

Wow - they BOTH don't get it?? [&:] i would have thought they cancelled out...

[Nikademus]

nope, they don't cancel out. both benefit from prep but the defender benefits more if both sides have the same # of prep points. Of course if the attacker has more firepower, better leaders, better exp, an HQ present etc etc....they can overcome that edge.

If the defender is out of supply of course he's really screwed (like my forces during the final siege days at Bataan and Manila)

[DuckofTindalos]

FIX THE BUGS![:'(]

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

nope, they don't cancel out. both benefit from prep but the defender benefits more if both sides have the same # of prep points.

Hmmm... not sure i fully understand this. i thought 100% prep doubled the AV of the unit... is this not true?

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

FIX THE BUGS![:'(]

Wait a second, arent't we supposed to be yelling that at YOU?! [:'(]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

nope, they don't cancel out. both benefit from prep but the defender benefits more if both sides have the same # of prep points.

Hmmm... not sure i fully understand this. i thought 100% prep doubled the AV of the unit... is this not true?

It's assumed to do so, but in tests i ran using two units, at various levels of prep on a base with no fort levels, equal exp and equal leaders, when both sides had equal prep points , the defender won each time, even accounting for variables that caused shifts in the adjusted AV. So while there was the usual GG "Stretch" of the results, the majority of results were consistant with defender advantage.

[rtrapasso]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

nope, they don't cancel out. both benefit from prep but the defender benefits more if both sides have the same # of prep points.

Hmmm... not sure i fully understand this. i thought 100% prep doubled the AV of the unit... is this not true?

It's assumed to do so, but in tests i ran using two units, at various levels of prep on a base with no fort levels, equal exp and equal leaders, when both sides had equal prep points , the defender won each time, even accounting for variables that caused shifts in the adjusted AV. So while there was the usual GG "Stretch" of the results, the majority of results were consistant with defender advantage.

Very interesting... [&o] [&o]

[Feinder]

I consider the "doubling" with 100 prep as "a pretty close ball-park". If you've got a 100 AV unit prepped at 100, you're going to attack/defend somewhere in the range of about 185 - 215.

Maybe with what Nik says, the defender will usually get in the 195 - 215 range, and the attacker would get in the 185 - 205. But given the mid-point of those ranges the Attacker will around 195, and the defender at 205 (I'm just ball-parking here). But for "what have I got to get to take this base down?" calculations, doubling at 100 prep generally works.

There are so many other things that can wonky with the finalnumber (disruption, fatigue, leader ratings, and ye olde random "Did Mac have his prunes this morning" roll), that a "ball park" of doube at 100 prep is close enough for me.

-F-

[RUPD3658]

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 03/15/44

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Chungking

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 737418 troops, 4906 guns, 1338 vehicles, Assault Value = 6345

Defending force 248440 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 8214

Japanese max assault: 5885 - adjusted assault: 952

Allied max defense: 6637 - adjusted defense: 1101

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 1)


Japanese ground losses:
33325 casualties reported
Guns lost 140
Vehicles lost 37

Allied ground losses:
2682 casualties reported

3 new base forces arrived at Chungking at added just enough AV to cause the attack to fail [:@]