Matrix Games Forums

Pandora: Eclipse of Nashira is now availableDistant Worlds Gets another updateHell is Approaching Deal of the Week Battle Academy Battle Academy 2 Out now!Legions of Steel ready for betaBattle Academy 2 gets trailers and Steam page!Deal of the Week Germany at WarSlitherine Group acquires Shenandoah StudioNew information and screenshots for Pike & Shot
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

So is Iwo Jima an island or an atoll?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> So is Iwo Jima an island or an atoll? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
So is Iwo Jima an island or an atoll? - 9/8/2010 4:06:46 AM   
AdmSpruance


Posts: 2365
Joined: 10/29/2004
From: Newport Coast, California
Status: offline
The AE manual reports that Iwo Jima is a small island. The terrain key show Iwo Jima to be rough terrain.

I invaded Iwo Jima last turn and the game engine treated it as an atoll combat and forced the Allies to shock attack for the 1st 2 days of the invasion:


Ground combat at Iwo-jima (108,77)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 46288 troops, 1041 guns, 1195 vehicles, Assault Value = 1876

Defending force 21081 troops, 328 guns, 70 vehicles, Assault Value = 663

Allied adjusted assault: 70

Japanese adjusted defense: 1423

Allied assault odds: 1 to 20 (fort level 4)

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

Japanese ground losses:
1856 casualties reported
Squads: 6 destroyed, 88 disabled
Non Combat: 97 destroyed, 154 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 16 disabled
Vehicles lost 118 (97 destroyed, 21 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
17443 casualties reported
Squads: 496 destroyed, 388 disabled
Non Combat: 473 destroyed, 378 disabled
Engineers: 59 destroyed, 71 disabled
Vehicles lost 876 (626 destroyed, 250 disabled)


Assaulting units:
2nd USMC Tank Bn /3
2nd Marine Div /8
37th Infantry Div /5
102nd Combat Engr Rgt /2
22nd Marine Rgt /3
147th(Sep) Infantry Rgt /2
1st USMC Tank Bn /1
193rd Tank Bn /1
640th TD Bn /1
24th (Sep) Infantry Rgt /1
4th Marine Div /9
148th FA Bn /1
223rd FA Bn /1
South Pacific /1
I US Amphib Corps /1

Defending units:
1st Ind.Mixed Regiment
78th Naval Guard Unit
88th Naval Guard Unit
13th Ind.Mixed Regiment
1st Amphibious Brigade
3rd Indpt SNLF Coy
34th Ind.Mixed Brigade
Iwo-jima Naval Guard Unit
28th Army
69th Field AA Battalion
3rd Medium Mortar Battalion
18th Field AF Construction Battalion
58th JNAF AF Unit


Ground combat at Iwo-jima (108,77)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 16844 troops, 741 guns, 245 vehicles, Assault Value = 750

Defending force 18896 troops, 323 guns, 67 vehicles, Assault Value = 549

Allied adjusted assault: 27

Japanese adjusted defense: 971

Allied assault odds: 1 to 35 (fort level 4)

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

Japanese ground losses:
1019 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 56 disabled
Non Combat: 11 destroyed, 59 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 11 disabled


Allied ground losses:
5407 casualties reported
Squads: 68 destroyed, 212 disabled
Non Combat: 125 destroyed, 403 disabled
Engineers: 7 destroyed, 39 disabled
Vehicles lost 89 (23 destroyed, 66 disabled)


Assaulting units:
4th Marine Division
102nd Combat Engineer Regiment
37th Infantry Division
24th (Sep) Infantry Regiment
22nd Marine Regiment
147th(Sep) Infantry Regiment
640th Tank Destroyer Battalion
193rd Tank Battalion
2nd Marine Division
1st USMC Tank Battalion
223rd Field Artillery Battalion
I US Amphib Corps
South Pacific
148th Field Artillery Battalion

Defending units:
1st Amphibious Brigade
1st Ind.Mixed Regiment
88th Naval Guard Unit
3rd Indpt SNLF Coy
13th Ind.Mixed Regiment
78th Naval Guard Unit
34th Ind.Mixed Brigade
Iwo-jima Naval Guard Unit
28th Army
18th Field AF Construction Battalion
3rd Medium Mortar Battalion
69th Field AA Battalion


This is with 2 day turns and invading on the 1st day of a turn.

< Message edited by AdmSpruance -- 9/8/2010 4:07:11 AM >
Post #: 1
RE: So is Iwo Jima an island or an atoll? - 9/8/2010 4:17:10 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 8077
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: online
You sent ashore the South Pacific HQ on an invasion?  That's a rear area HQ.

I don't believe Iwo is classified as an atoll, but I'm not 100% sure either way.

Bill


_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to AdmSpruance)
Post #: 2
RE: So is Iwo Jima an island or an atoll? - 9/8/2010 2:40:47 PM   
topeverest

 

Posts: 2230
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: online
Island is classified as Small / Rough. Capacity of 30K ground

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 3
RE: So is Iwo Jima an island or an atoll? - 9/8/2010 2:46:41 PM   
topeverest

 

Posts: 2230
Joined: 10/17/2007
From: Houston, TX - USA
Status: online
AdmSpruance

Let me ask if you accurately reconned the base? Will you be bugging out or going all-in?

IMHO, need at least and entire army to take that island. It has to be one of the the toughest to take. I constantly question weather it is worth it. Also many more combat engineers needed...no need for south pacific, I agree.

_____________________________

Andy M

(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 4
RE: So is Iwo Jima an island or an atoll? - 9/8/2010 3:11:26 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 12271
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: topeverest

Island is classified as Small / Rough. Capacity of 30K ground



which means there shouldn´t be a shock attack... a pity invasions aren´t treated as river crossings where you don´t have to shock attack if your "bridgehead" on the other side is big enough. I never really like the idea to see endless opposed landings somewhere even if you had four divs on the island already which have been in the fight for weeks and if you send reinforcements you still have to do an opposed landing. Let alone that this isn´t possible without more or less full preparation. I guess you could land a unit without any preparation on Iwo Jima if two or three divs have secured enough land, but as long as you haven´t seized the "whole hex" it´s always treated as an opposed landing. I had high hopes to see the "bridgehead" feature for invasions too.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 9/8/2010 3:13:46 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to topeverest)
Post #: 5
RE: So is Iwo Jima an island or an atoll? - 9/8/2010 4:01:32 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14777
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
AdmSpruance,

You really should post a save game from just before so they can see why there was a shock attack.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 6
RE: So is Iwo Jima an island or an atoll? - 9/9/2010 12:01:49 AM   
BigJ62


Posts: 1795
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Alpharetta, Georgia
Status: offline
It is not checking for atoll it is looking for island size of 1 (6K) or 2 (30K).

_____________________________

Witp-AE
AeAi…AeAi …AeAi…Long live AeAi.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 7
RE: So is Iwo Jima an island or an atoll? - 9/9/2010 12:25:14 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 14777
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

It is not checking for atoll it is looking for island size of 1 (6K) or 2 (30K).


James,

Is that intended? All I've ever seen in manual and on the forums is 'Atoll'.

(in reply to BigJ62)
Post #: 8
RE: So is Iwo Jima an island or an atoll? - 9/9/2010 12:29:06 AM   
BigJ62


Posts: 1795
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Alpharetta, Georgia
Status: offline
yep it is intended as there can be large atolls so, it is size that we are looking for.

_____________________________

Witp-AE
AeAi…AeAi …AeAi…Long live AeAi.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 9
RE: So is Iwo Jima an island or an atoll? - 9/9/2010 12:35:50 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 14777
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Slight clarification sought - does this mean that a size=60,000 Atoll does not trigger a shock attack?

(in reply to BigJ62)
Post #: 10
RE: So is Iwo Jima an island or an atoll? - 9/9/2010 12:42:19 AM   
BigJ62


Posts: 1795
Joined: 12/28/2002
From: Alpharetta, Georgia
Status: offline
oops my mistake just looked at code again and it is looking for atoll or sz 1 or sz 2 so your above example would trigger a shock attack.

_____________________________

Witp-AE
AeAi…AeAi …AeAi…Long live AeAi.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 11
RE: So is Iwo Jima an island or an atoll? - 9/9/2010 12:47:25 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 14777
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
OK, got it!

I did not know a size 1 or 2 (non-atoll) would do it, so this is valuable info.

(in reply to BigJ62)
Post #: 12
RE: So is Iwo Jima an island or an atoll? - 9/9/2010 7:53:41 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12271
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

yep it is intended as there can be large atolls so, it is size that we are looking for.



wow, now that´s news you want to know

_____________________________


(in reply to BigJ62)
Post #: 13
RE: So is Iwo Jima an island or an atoll? - 9/10/2010 4:18:39 AM   
AdmSpruance


Posts: 2365
Joined: 10/29/2004
From: Newport Coast, California
Status: offline
castor troy.....Im in _TOTAL_ agreement with you...that is something you would really want to know. The manual states that atolls cause shock attacks....there is no mention of islands or island/atoll sizes in the manual that would affect shock attacks.

BigJ62.....thanx for the clarification. I just learned a _VERY_ expensive lesson.....3 divisions virtually destroyed. If an opponent overstacked Iwo Jima with 35,000 troops as I faced there I would simply (and will in the future) avoid assault as Iwo is virtually worthless compared to at least a half dozen other islands that are closer to Japan and allow construction of larger airfields.

One of the problems of trying to play this game historically. My next assault will be at Okinawa with over 70,000 IJA troops defending
....watch out for those fireworks.

In response for the other posters in this thread.......yeah I landed the South Pacific HQ at Iwo Jima. South Pacific HQ is NOT a rear area HQ....it is a COMMAND HQ and if prepped 100% for the objective in the presence of a Corps HQ 100% prepped for the objective(which I had) can give a 90% bonus to the assault. In addition, the South Pacific HQ has 240 support that helps ground combat units recover from disruption and another 100 Naval support that helps unloading of troops, equipment and supplies. South Pacific HQ was out of the 18 hex range for Iwo Jima when I planned the offensive(and I could have landed it elsewhere) but I was lazy but also wanted it positioned forward for a future offensive. Plus it gave the LCUs 240 support for disruption recovery and helped troops, equipment and supplies unload. CENTPAC/SOPAC/SWPAC are _ALL_ technically rear area HQs....but they are the _ONLY_ Command HQs for the Allies outside of Asia.

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 14
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Tech Support >> So is Iwo Jima an island or an atoll? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.078