Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Hi all,

I loaded up my sandbox scenario for testing (all units are delayed, so it's a blank map.)

I took a standard IJA division and made it pretty average (60 exp, 95 morale, no disablements, 100% toe, etc) I put it in the hex where Lingayen is, and activated the Lingayen base (open terrain).

Then I copied the IJA division and changed the nationality to US army. I did the same thing with 2 IJA mountain gun regiments.
So, I have 3 allied and 3 IJA units at the same base (us owned), that are IDENTICAL in all regards (ok, I forgot to give them identical leaders.)

I had the IJN side bombard for 5 turns (Lingayen was set at 0 forts). The casualties were almost identical each round. There were very slight differences, but nothing that looked weird. I expected to see close to identical results.

Then I had the allied side bombard for 5 turns (started the scenario over), and saw IDENTICAL casualties again.

Then I changed the forts at Lingayen to 9 and repeated the two trials.

When the IJN bombarded, they took 400ish casualties and the Allied side took almost zero, each round.

When the Allied side bombarded, they took zero casualties and the IJN side took 40ish casualties, each round.

I expected to see identical casualties in the 2nd set of runs, so I'm a little confused.

My take on this limited test is:

If all details are identical, you will see identical results. My guess on the OP's issue of too many casualties from the bombarding side is that his opponent is behind some forts. Forts were all I changed in my tests and they made significant contributions to casualties taken by the side in them.

My only concern with my tests was the difference in casualties in the 2nd set of tests. I don't know why the fort owner would dish out fewer casualties when on the offensive than when they were on the defensive. Anyway, it is what it is.

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Hi all,

I loaded up my sandbox scenario for testing (all units are delayed, so it's a blank map.)

I took a standard IJA division and made it pretty average (60 exp, 95 morale, no disablements, 100% toe, etc) I put it in the hex where Lingayen is, and activated the Lingayen base (open terrain).

Then I copied the IJA division and changed the nationality to US army. I did the same thing with 2 IJA mountain gun regiments.
So, I have 3 allied and 3 IJA units at the same base (us owned), that are IDENTICAL in all regards (ok, I forgot to give them identical leaders.)

I had the IJN side bombard for 5 turns (Lingayen was set at 0 forts). The casualties were almost identical each round. There were very slight differences, but nothing that looked weird. I expected to see close to identical results.

Then I had the allied side bombard for 5 turns (started the scenario over), and saw IDENTICAL casualties again.

Then I changed the forts at Lingayen to 9 and repeated the two trials.

When the IJN bombarded, they took 400ish casualties and the Allied side took almost zero, each round.

When the Allied side bombarded, they took zero casualties and the IJN side took 40ish casualties, each round.

I expected to see identical casualties in the 2nd set of runs, so I'm a little confused.

My take on this limited test is:

If all details are identical, you will see identical results. My guess on the OP's issue of too many casualties from the bombarding side is that his opponent is behind some forts. Forts were all I changed in my tests and they made significant contributions to casualties taken by the side in them.

My only concern with my tests was the difference in casualties in the 2nd set of tests. I don't know why the fort owner would dish out fewer casualties when on the offensive than when they were on the defensive. Anyway, it is what it is.

ORIGINAL: vettim89

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

Hi all,

I loaded up my sandbox scenario for testing (all units are delayed, so it's a blank map.)

I took a standard IJA division and made it pretty average (60 exp, 95 morale, no disablements, 100% toe, etc) I put it in the hex where Lingayen is, and activated the Lingayen base (open terrain).

Then I copied the IJA division and changed the nationality to US army. I did the same thing with 2 IJA mountain gun regiments.
So, I have 3 allied and 3 IJA units at the same base (us owned), that are IDENTICAL in all regards (ok, I forgot to give them identical leaders.)

I had the IJN side bombard for 5 turns (Lingayen was set at 0 forts). The casualties were almost identical each round. There were very slight differences, but nothing that looked weird. I expected to see close to identical results.

Then I had the allied side bombard for 5 turns (started the scenario over), and saw IDENTICAL casualties again.

Then I changed the forts at Lingayen to 9 and repeated the two trials.

When the IJN bombarded, they took 400ish casualties and the Allied side took almost zero, each round.

When the Allied side bombarded, they took zero casualties and the IJN side took 40ish casualties, each round.

I expected to see identical casualties in the 2nd set of runs, so I'm a little confused.

My take on this limited test is:

If all details are identical, you will see identical results. My guess on the OP's issue of too many casualties from the bombarding side is that his opponent is behind some forts. Forts were all I changed in my tests and they made significant contributions to casualties taken by the side in them.

My only concern with my tests was the difference in casualties in the 2nd set of tests. I don't know why the fort owner would dish out fewer casualties when on the offensive than when they were on the defensive. Anyway, it is what it is.

Did you have a unit on the map somewhere that changed its orders before every iteration of the test? This would be necessary to reset the random number generator. Otherwise the engine will just spew out the same results over and over again.

ORIGINAL: Osterhaut

Bradley7735, the forts are only for the people who own the base. So if allies own the base it is ok that they get 0.

The thing is about what people do with the LCU stack. Everybody puts the whole stack in combat and bombards with everything including hundreds of "guns" that cant bombard because they dont have range or they are at or aa guns, or what. So when they bombard the counter battery is onto the whole stack and hits Hq, and tank, and AT, and construction engineers, and everything that was in 'combat' and ordered to 'bombard'. And if that was it then counter bombardment should kill a lot more.

If you bombard with artillery units and put everybody else in rest things work out fine. You have to think about what kinds of modes you put your units into. If you are stupid, the game is broken. If you are smart the game works ok.

MO

ORIGINAL: Osterhaut

Bradley7735, the forts are only for the people who own the base. So if allies own the base it is ok that they get 0.

MO

ORIGINAL: Osterhaut

Bradley7735, the forts are only for the people who own the base. So if allies own the base it is ok that they get 0.

The thing is about what people do with the LCU stack. Everybody puts the whole stack in combat and bombards with everything including hundreds of "guns" that cant bombard because they dont have range or they are at or aa guns, or what. So when they bombard the counter battery is onto the whole stack and hits Hq, and tank, and AT, and construction engineers, and everything that was in 'combat' and ordered to 'bombard'. And if that was it then counter bombardment should kill a lot more.

If you bombard with artillery units and put everybody else in rest things work out fine. You have to think about what kinds of modes you put your units into. If you are stupid, the game is broken. If you are smart the game works ok.MO

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735
Hi MO,

Yes, I agree with this statement. My test was trying to show that the attacker does not always take more casualties than the defender when you are just bombarding. I think my tests showed that IF all varables are identical, then casualties are pretty close to identical. However, if one side has better variables (ie, forts, better guns, more exp, etc) than that side will take less casualties.

I think some folks are seeing Japanese attackers taking more casualties from the Chinese defenders, and I would guess that the fort levels are making a large contribution to which side takes losses.

bc

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

Some example why I think some tweaks are needed (for artillery in general, not only japanese one of course). I've taken this examples from combat reports of PBEM turns I run today.

#1 (I am the Japanese).

Ground combat at Batavia (49,98)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 63797 troops, 652 guns, 244 vehicles, Assault Value = 2287

Defending force 24209 troops, 352 guns, 165 vehicles, Assault Value = 643

Japanese ground losses:
     15 casualties reported
        Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
        Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
        Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Allied ground losses:
     10 casualties reported
        Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
        Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 0 disabled
        Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
   15th Ind. Engineer Regiment
   112th Infantry Regiment
   14th Tank Regiment
   5th Division
   148th Infantry Regiment
   56th Recon Regiment
   Imperial Guards Division
   48th Division
   4th Ind. Engineer Regiment
   2nd Division
   56th Engineer Regiment
   16th/A Division
   3rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
   56th Field Artillery Regiment
   Southern Army
   15th Army
   21st Medium Field Artillery Battalion

Defending units:
   Tjilatjap KNIL Battalion
   Mobiele Eenheid Battalion
   2nd KNIL Regiment
   Lijfwacht Cav Sqn
   4th KNIL Landstorm Battalion
   1st KNIL Landstorm Battalion
   Batavia Coastal Gun Battalion
   4th KNIL Regiment
   1st Regt Cavalerie
   1st KNIL Regiment
   Roodenburg Battalion
   Batavia Base Force
   ML-KNIL
   1st KNIL AA Battalion
   Tjilitap Base Force
   3rd KNIL AA Battalion
   ABDA
   Merak Base Force
   KNIL Army Command
   1 ML-KNIL Aviation
   Bandoeng Base Force

650 guns vs 350 guns and 1 squad disabled each?  Batavia has forts = 2.


#2 Ground combat at Lashio (62,46) (Same opponent but parts are swapped for this one, I am the allies).

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 6004 troops, 165 guns, 42 vehicles, Assault Value = 261

Defending force 10235 troops, 167 guns, 34 vehicles, Assault Value = 259


Allied ground losses:
     5 casualties reported
        Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
        Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
        Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled


Assaulting units:
   6th RTA Division
    1st RF Gun Battalion
   3rd Mortar Battalion
   18th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
   5th Field Artillery Regiment
   21st Medium Field Artillery Battalion
 
Defending units:
   13th Burma Rifles Battalion
   9/11th Sikh Battalion
   1st Gloucestershire Battalion
   1st Burma Battalion
   5th Burma Battalion
   4/14th Punjab Battalion
   4th Burma Battalion
   1st Burma Brigade
   4/8th Gurkha Battalion
   46th Indian Brigade
   BFF Brigade
   2nd Burma Brigade
   2nd King Own YLI Battalion
   Mandalay BMP Battalion
   48th Gurkha Brigade
   104th RAF Base Force
   1st Burma Auxiliary AA Regiment
   27th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
   103rd RAF Base Force
   Burma Corps
   102nd RAF Base Force
   106th RAF Base Force

Probabily there's something that me and my opponent do not understand about artillery in our games, but to me artillery (in bombardment missions) often seems quite useless. It burns supply for no clear advantage for the attacker...

Bye.

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

Probabily there's something that me and my opponent do not understand about artillery in our games, but to me artillery (in bombardment missions) often seems quite useless. It burns supply for no clear advantage for the attacker...

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

Probabily there's something that me and my opponent do not understand about artillery in our games, but to me artillery (in bombardment missions) often seems quite useless. It burns supply for no clear advantage for the attacker...

If I recall correctly, the game term "guns" covers a very wide range of devices. The Japanese might be shown possessing "600 guns" without the information that 200 of them are "knee mortars" with a range of only a couple hundred yards (virtually worthless in what most people would describe as a "bombardment").

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: invernomuto

Probabily there's something that me and my opponent do not understand about artillery in our games, but to me artillery (in bombardment missions) often seems quite useless. It burns supply for no clear advantage for the attacker...

If I recall correctly, the game term "guns" covers a very wide range of devices. The Japanese might be shown possessing "600 guns" without the information that 200 of them are "knee mortars" with a range of only a couple hundred yards (virtually worthless in what most people would describe as a "bombardment").

Indeed.

Like in one above example:

1st RF Gun Battalion = AT guns = direct fire, will not help at all with bombardment
3rd Mortar Battalion = 90mm mortars = range 4k yards = not going to help much
18th Medium Field Artillery Regiment = 10cm howizer = 12k yards = this will most likely be the one doing damage
5th Field Artillery Regiment = 75 mm guns = 8 k yards
21st Medium Field Artillery Battalion = 10 cm or 15 cm guns = will work

So, we could see that one unit would not fire at all and 2 units are very marginal.