House rules for impregnable Allied armour

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

AE Veteran
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:29 pm

House rules for impregnable Allied armour

Post by AE Veteran »

Ok this happened at Cam Rah Bay-


Ground combat at Cam Ranh Bay (64,72)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 892 troops, 0 guns, 125 vehicles, Assault Value = 113

Defending force 6656 troops, 82 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 189

Allied adjusted assault: 9

Japanese adjusted defense: 517

Allied assault odds: 1 to 57 (fort level 2)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), experience(-)
Attacker: fatigue(-)

Japanese ground losses:
249 casualties reported
Squads: 2 destroyed, 7 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled

Assaulting units:
5th USMC Tank Battalion
8th KGV Light Cav Regiment

Defending units:
21st Ind.Mixed Regiment
16th Ind.Mixed Regiment
11th Shipping Engineer Regiment
68th Field AA Battalion
Cam Ranh Fortress



Been happening a lot, whilst I know the Japs were light on AT support but they had field guns, flamethrowers, molotovs, magnetic mines, satchel charges and some pretty determined soldiers.
So why no Allied tank losses at all? It is ruining our game which is Jul 1944. Any house rules?
AE Veteran
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:29 pm

RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour

Post by AE Veteran »

Yeah forgot pole bombs, well they had them in Steel Panthers [:)]
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

The 11th Shipping Regiment must not have thrown their cargo hooks. Those things can put somebody's eye out. [:)]
The Moose
AE Veteran
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:29 pm

RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour

Post by AE Veteran »

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/w ... mber34.pdf

Lots of nasty anti tanks stuff not modelled at all in the game - why am I bothering?
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

I assume you're bothering because you're interesting in the topic.

This is a game of detail. You haven't provided very much. Start by looking in the in-game device DB and look up anti-hard and anti-soft ratings for the platforms in question. Then you need to look at each LCU involved, its status at the time of this engagement. We can't tell without screenshots what those (+) and (-) marks mean in the CR. They're important.

What were the stats of each CO? Important. See that (-) on Experience? You're fighting late-war Marines equipped with Shermans.

Exactly HOW fatigued were the attackers? Big difference between 50 and 90.

What was the supply state in the defenders? A raw AV of 189 is terrible for almost 7000 men.

The terrain and forts saved you. With an AV that low, with an anti-soft rating that high in late-war Allied armor, you'd be toast in the open. And you didn't lose a level of forts--probably due to the fatigue. Your KIA losses were two (2) squads.

You got very lucky your opponent doesn't understand the land combat algorithm very well. Or he's in a hurry and took a chance.

It's summer of 1944. Take your lumps. You had your fun in 1942.
The Moose
AE Veteran
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:29 pm

RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour

Post by AE Veteran »

Yes sorry I meant bothering continuing the game [:)]
User avatar
Yaab
Posts: 5041
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2011 2:09 pm
Location: Poland

RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour

Post by Yaab »

Just attack them with level bombers flying low. Respond to the ahistorical with the ahistorical.
AE Veteran
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:29 pm

RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour

Post by AE Veteran »

It was about the third attack in a row without a tank loss. I'm sure all the algorithms add up but my point is no close up and nasty Jap AT weapons are factored in at all. My opponent has learned the combat algorithm all too well and has a number of unstoppable, loss free attacks going. It just isn't realistic!!!
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour

Post by dr.hal »

I'm not sure what version of the game you are playing.... isn't that important in relation to any answers or did I miss something. Moose in your response, what version are you basing your response on, or is it generic? Hal
AE Veteran
Posts: 23
Joined: Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:29 pm

RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour

Post by AE Veteran »

Latest patch
ORIGINAL: dr.hal

I'm not sure what version of the game you are playing.... isn't that important in relation to any answers or did I miss something. Moose in your response, what version are you basing your response on, or is it generic? Hal
User avatar
KenchiSulla
Posts: 2956
Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 3:19 pm
Location: the Netherlands

RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour

Post by KenchiSulla »

Fine to discuss this ofcourse but you should correct the title. It's not just allied armour. If you role in a couple of regiments of tanks into China, against troops with almost no AT weapons the results are the same..
AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor
User avatar
Gaspote
Posts: 303
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2013 10:12 am
Location: France

RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour

Post by Gaspote »

I think the only thing to consider is :
Allied adjusted assault: 9
Japanese adjusted defense: 517
Allied assault odds: 1 to 57 (fort level 2)

how is it possible that 9 assault point won 517 ? In this case even if the jap get a bad AT values the offensive of the allied is just ridiculous. the IJA infantry squad got an AT values of 5 so it's not like they couldn't do something and they get some AT guns too

I remember losing some japanese tank in China with balance ratio so I'm totally lost in this case.
It's like all japanese weapons basically can't damage an allied tank.
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: AE Veteran

It was about the third attack in a row without a tank loss. I'm sure all the algorithms add up but my point is no close up and nasty Jap AT weapons are factored in at all. My opponent has learned the combat algorithm all too well and has a number of unstoppable, loss free attacks going. It just isn't realistic!!!

The algorithms do add up. Have for a decade-plus with this engine. I just think you don't understand them.

As I said before, you haven't provided nearly enough information to make the claims you're making.
The Moose
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

I'm not sure what version of the game you are playing.... isn't that important in relation to any answers or did I miss something. Moose in your response, what version are you basing your response on, or is it generic? Hal

My answers were generic. Nothing the OP posted is "wrong", but the presentation is incomplete.

For example, in addition to the supply and CO stat factors I mentioned, is either stack inside the command radius of an HQ? What is the disablement state of the IJA anti-tank weapons? (I looked at one of the infantry units. They have a TOE for some 37mm anti-tank guns. Not Sherman-killers.) What are the morale states of each side? Fatigue? I believe from memory that one Japanese unit stands up in mid-1943 and the other in mid-1944. What are their experience levels? Have either been clocked and re-formed? We know what the experience of the Marines is going to be. Ditto morale.

The Indian unit starts with almost 100 AFVs. I don't know what they upgrade to by mid-1944; didn't dig that far. The anti-soft of the Indian gear is pretty low. But the Marines' anti-soft is great.

All that said, I again say--this was a failed Allied attack. No fort reduction. Two squads. The Allied player needs to re-think what he's doing, especially if this is the third attack and the base is still there in Japanese hands.

And the very LAST thing that needs to be done here is talk about house rules.
The Moose
User avatar
HansBolter
Posts: 7191
Joined: Thu Jul 06, 2006 12:30 pm
Location: United States

RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour

Post by HansBolter »

ORIGINAL: Gaspote

I think the only thing to consider is :
Allied adjusted assault: 9
Japanese adjusted defense: 517
Allied assault odds: 1 to 57 (fort level 2)

how is it possible that 9 assault point won 517 ? In this case even if the jap get a bad AT values the offensive of the allied is just ridiculous. the IJA infantry squad got an AT values of 5 so it's not like they couldn't do something and they get some AT guns too

I remember losing some japanese tank in China with balance ratio so I'm totally lost in this case.
It's like all japanese weapons basically can't damage an allied tank.

Comparisons of assault values is and always has been very, very misleading.

The calculated odds are only used to determine if a retreat occurs.

Combat isn't resolved by comparing odds and rolling results on a CRT. Each device with a firepower values fires at another device. It is really firepower and not assault that determines the outcomes of combats.
Although you had a higher assault value,possibly artificially enhanced because 0 AV units are given an artificial Assault Value for defensive purposes, you likely had very, very little firepower value.

And, as Cannofodder pointed out, the Japanese armor runs rough shod over the Allies in '42, when their units have very little antitank firepower values. This is common in China and Oz.

Land combat resolution has always been poorly reported to the player as far as providing comprehensible results. In my opinion, one of the greater failings of the game that we old timers have learned to live with and read between the lines.

Hans

User avatar
RogerJNeilson
Posts: 1277
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2012 5:21 am
Location: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK

RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour

Post by RogerJNeilson »

I'm the 'opponent' and am keeping fairly quiet about this as we have a 'slight' disagreement.

However just to illuminate things from the other side of the hill for those who are interested....

Attack 1 - 2 July 1944

Ground combat at Cam Ranh Bay (64,72)
Allied Deliberate attack Attacking force 1500 troops, 0 guns, 219 vehicles, Assault Value = 121
Defending force 4820 troops, 70 guns, 1 vehicles, Assault Value = 127
Allied adjusted assault: 37
Japanese adjusted defense: 238
Allied assault odds: 1 to 6 (fort level 2)
Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker: fatigue(-)

Japanese ground losses: 303 casualties reported Squads: 0 destroyed, 21 disabled Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 10 disabled Engineers: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled Guns lost 14 (2 destroyed, 12 disabled) Vehicles lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled) Units destroyed 1

Assaulting units:
5th USMC Tank Battalion
8th KGV Light Cav Regiment
Defending units:
21st Ind.Mixed Regiment
Bandasan SNLF
11th Shipping Engineer Regiment
Cam Ranh Fortress
68th Field AA Battalion
3rd Air Army /1

Attack 2 - 3 Jul 1944

Ground combat at Cam Ranh Bay (64,72)
Allied Deliberate attack Attacking force 884 troops, 0 guns, 125 vehicles, Assault Value = 116
Defending force 4559 troops, 68 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 105
Allied adjusted assault: 12 Japanese adjusted defense: 214 Allied assault odds: 1 to 17 (fort level 2)
Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker: fatigue(-)
Japanese ground losses: 125 casualties reported Squads: 1 destroyed, 7 disabled Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled Engineers: 1 destroyed, 4 disabled Guns lost 10 (4 destroyed, 6 disabled)

Assaulting units:
5th USMC Tank Battalion 8th KGV Light Cav Regiment

Defending units:
21st Ind. Mixed Regiment
Bandasan SNLF
68th Field AA Battalion
11th Shipping Engineer Regiment
Cam Ranh Fortress ,


I don't have the third attack info as I have only had the replay. Orders are currently in abeyance.

I understand the combat and I know what I am doing here.... maybe I am not prepared to say what I am doing though....

The 5th USMC has fatigue of 32 and are griping a bit about a day off..... they have 15M4s and 34 M3s. Good morale at 79 and good experience at 67. LTC Clinkenbeard at 62 Land seems a decent leader, though his name is maybe not so great.
8th KGV is 'having its rest' but held in reserve.

LTC Clinkenbeard has told his tanks to sit back and snipe at anything they see, and has assured them that the 37mmm a/t weapons of the Japs are no threat whatsoever. It would be a different matter if the Japs decided to close assault, but as their commander has told them to defend in their bunkers its pretty well a duck shoot. Intel has reported the 'bunkers' are not very substantial and certainly not much when a Sherman hits them. Some troops have asked if they can just charge in and shock attack the so and so's but LTC Clinckenbeard says no boys, lets just batter them with our longer reach. In naval terms would you expect a battleship to close with destroyers?

I have no idea about the enemy morale, nor their supply state. However there isn't anything getting in there these days and its been a long time since Jap planes appeared over the skies in this region.






An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, Roger Neilson 3 previous posts 898+1515 + 1126 = 3539.....Finally completed my game which started the day WITP:AE was released
User avatar
Lokasenna
Posts: 9303
Joined: Sat Mar 03, 2012 3:57 am
Location: Iowan in MD/DC

RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour

Post by Lokasenna »

Run the units out of supply and they'll crumple on the assault. Here's my IJA armored unit attacking Chinese infantry early in my war at Urumchi:
Ground combat at Urumchi (79,11)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 2138 troops, 0 guns, 335 vehicles, Assault Value = 172

Defending force 9434 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 263

Japanese adjusted assault: 42

Allied adjusted defense: 179

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 4 (fort level 2)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker: supply(-)

Japanese ground losses:
Vehicles lost 59 (3 destroyed, 56 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
913 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 77 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 11 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 9 disabled

Assaulting units:
15th Tank Regiment
12th Tank Regiment
23rd Tank Regiment

Defending units:
259th Brigade
303rd Brigade
9th Separate Brigade
19th Chinese Base Force
21st Chinese Base Force

Note that there were no AT guns as there were no guns in the defending force. My losses were extremely light prior to this assault. I lost a bunch of disabled (and some destroyed) vehicles simply because I attacked when my units were at ~50% or less supply from being bombed all day every day.
User avatar
Jim D Burns
Posts: 3980
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2002 6:00 pm
Location: Salida, CA.

RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour

Post by Jim D Burns »

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
I understand the combat and I know what I am doing here.... maybe I am not prepared to say what I am doing though....

I think I know what's up, but in deference to your wishes due to this being a PBEM game I'll refrain from stating my belief unless you say it's ok to talk about it first.

Jim
DaveConn
Posts: 254
Joined: Thu May 03, 2001 8:00 am
Location: Bainbridge Island, Washington

RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour

Post by DaveConn »

It is probably important to note that if this is an issue (and I don't think it probably is), it isn't limited to allied armor. I have seen similar results early in the my games with IJA tank units against the Dutch: attacks at low odds, inflicting casualties on defenders but none on the attacking armor. Seemed reasonable to me.
BattleMoose
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Feb 17, 2014 12:16 am

RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour

Post by BattleMoose »

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
I understand the combat and I know what I am doing here.... maybe I am not prepared to say what I am doing though....

I think I know what's up, but in deference to your wishes due to this being a PBEM game I'll refrain from stating my belief unless you say it's ok to talk about it first.

Jim

I don't really know whats going on here but taking advantage of a superior knowledge of game mechanics is in my opinion something that really isn't okay. If that is in fact something that is happening here, impossible to tell.

Being a relative newbie to the game, I try and learn as much about it as I can. :-/
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”