Automatic bombardment triggered by amphibious assault

Matrix Games Forums

Distant Worlds: Shadows Final Teaser!

Distant Worlds: Legends gets Updated!

Recruiting Testers for Commander: the Great War on Mac!

Armageddon invasion starts in 2014

Command Rommels Panzers in Battle Academy!

Servers Update

The Deal goes Fourth!

Command Ops gets a Massive Update!

Lost Battles AAR: Smolensk 41

War in the East: Lost Battles is here!

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Automatic bombardment triggered by amphibious assault

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 >> Automatic bombardment triggered by amphibious assault

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Automatic bombardment triggered by amphibious assault - 6/25/2011 2:13:45 AM

apbarog

Posts: 109
Joined: 5/23/2002
Status: offline

I believe that a defender should not be forced to do a bombardment attack when the enemy does an amphibious assault without landing any troops.

As the Japanese, I am defending Moulmein in a PBEM. Both sides have many units there. The Allies haven't been able to dig me out, although they have reduced my forts to 0. The Allies are having supply problems, and are sending in small task forces with supply only, no troops. Because of the amphibious landing, the defender automatically does a bombardment attack. Because of the force compositions of the two sides, the defender get slaughtered by his bombardment, which is out of his control. Here is the latest example:

Invasion Support action off Moulmein
Defensive Guns engage approaching landing force

25 Coastal gun shots fired in defense.

Allied Ships
DD Stronghold
LST 237

No activity noticed on shore.

*******************

Ground combat at Moulmein (55,55)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 17075 troops, 247 guns, 63 vehicles, Assault Value = 1319

Defending force 71929 troops, 1461 guns, 1156 vehicles, Assault Value = 2515

Japanese ground losses:
713 casualties reported
Squads: 36 destroyed, 17 disabled
Non Combat: 21 destroyed, 16 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 8 (5 destroyed, 3 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
26 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
1st Tank Division
105th Division
2nd Tank Division
112th Infantry Regiment
13th Garrison Unit
29th/C Division
15th Army
56th Field Artillery Regiment
1st RF Gun Battalion
4th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
33rd Army
55th Mountain Gun Regiment
49th Field AA Battalion
20th AA Regiment
6th Naval Construction Battalion

Defending units:
17th Indian Division
26th Indian Division
2nd British Division
IV Corps Engineer Battalion
Gardner's Horse Regiment
11th PAVO Regiment
Lushai Brigade
23rd Indian Division
14th Army Engineer Battalion
39th Indian Division
XXXIII Corps Engineer Battalion
5th Indian Division
24th Indian Engineer Battalion
21st Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
2nd Indian Field Regiment
28th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
29th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
26th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
6th Medium Regiment
6th Mixed A/T Mtr Regiment
*****************

This is breaking my defense and seems unreasonable.

Disclaimer: My opponent and I have discussed this, and we are allowing it in this game because it has occurred to both sides. In the future, both sides should understand the consequences of this situation and only ship in supply if necessary. Ideally, I would want the code to prevent an automatic bombardment if only supply is being unloaded. Task forces can take days unloading over the beach.

Post #: 1

RE: Automatic bombardment triggered by amphibious assault - 6/25/2011 2:46:09 AM

Miller

Posts: 1456
Joined: 9/14/2004
From: Ashington, England.
Status: online

How on earth can the side doing the bombardment take so many casualties whilst doing nothing to the enemy

Crazy.

(in reply to apbarog)

Post #: 2

RE: Automatic bombardment triggered by amphibious assault - 6/25/2011 2:51:15 AM

apbarog

Posts: 109
Joined: 5/23/2002
Status: offline

The bombarding side taking so many more casualties has been discussed before. It is assumed that there is bombarding and counter-bombarding, and in my case, the bombarding side is vastly outgunned. That is not my issue. My concern is that the bombardment occurred because one ship is unloading supply. and this is breaking what was a delicate defensive balance. I was holding, probably because of the attacker's supply situation. Note that this isn't the first turn that this automatic bombarding has occurred. The bombarding forces were stronger originally. Now they are on the edge of collapse, all without the Allies having to attack.

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 3

RE: Automatic bombardment triggered by amphibious assault - 6/25/2011 3:25:30 AM

Shark7

Posts: 6166
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

How on earth can the side doing the bombardment take so many casualties whilst doing nothing to the enemy Crazy.

Because the bombardments were nerfed to before the stone age due to complaints. IMHO you should NEVER choose to bombard an enemy position with artillery, all you do is give the enemy experience and yourself losses.

An honestly, you should never be forced into a bombardment just because the enemy unloads supplies (in fact, I'm not sure you should be forced to automatically bombard on an amphibious landing...cautious attack maybe, just bombardment, no).

_____________________________

aka- Akula

Larry Bond's Harpoon - Commander's Edition

Development Team Member

(in reply to Miller)

Post #: 4

RE: Automatic bombardment triggered by amphibious assault - 6/25/2011 4:04:05 AM

treespider

Posts: 9735
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Knoxville
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: Miller

How on earth can the side doing the bombardment take so many casualties whilst doing nothing to the enemy Crazy.

Because the bombardments were nerfed to before the stone age due to complaints. IMHO you should NEVER choose to bombard an enemy position with artillery, all you do is give the enemy experience and yourself losses.

Except when you don't...

quote:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR May 24, 42

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Ichang (83,48)

Japanese Bombardment attack

Attacking force 2403 troops, 197 guns, 46 vehicles, Assault Value = 1260

Defending force 107008 troops, 544 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 2956

Allied ground losses:
215 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 9 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 9 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

Assaulting units:
39th Division
13th Division
32nd Division
26th Field Artillery Regiment
12th Ind.Hvy.Art Battalion
2nd Mortar Battalion
52nd Ind.Mtn.Gun Battalion
2nd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
15th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
11th Army
20th Ind. Mtn Gun Battalion
11th Ind.Hvy.Art Battalion
1st Mortar Battalion
51st Field Const Co
67th JAAF AF Coy

Defending units:
39th Chinese Corps
8th Chinese Corps
5th Chinese Cavalry Corps
32nd Chinese Corps
73rd Chinese Corps
53rd Chinese Corps
75th Chinese Corps
30th Chinese Corps
2nd Chinese Corps
77th Chinese Corps
3rd Chinese Cavalry Corps
O-Y-W Pol. Sect.
56th Chinese/C Corps
26th Group Army
20th Group Army
6th War Area
33rd Group Army

_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 5

RE: Automatic bombardment triggered by amphibious assault - 6/25/2011 4:08:35 AM

apbarog

Posts: 109
Joined: 5/23/2002
Status: offline

Again, my concern is not that my bombardment did more damage to myself. My concern is that it was an automatic bombardment triggered by the enemy unloading only supply from one ship. With a few days of unloading, my position becomes untenable.

(in reply to treespider)

Post #: 6

RE: Automatic bombardment triggered by amphibious assault - 6/25/2011 5:16:58 AM

hjalmar99

Posts: 229
Joined: 8/2/2005
From: Alberta
Status: offline

In apbarog's example, the intent was to supply the Allied troops, and it was done to overcome the major supply suckage that China has against the troops in Moulmein. It would have been nice to have a "supply valve" in Rangoon to allow for the direction of supply flow.

There's a new concept: "Supply Valves" at major traffic nodes . . . to direct the flow of supplies.

This does not obviate the need for the removal of invasion-triggered automatic-bombardments. Give the player an optiom in this case.

(in reply to apbarog)

Post #: 7

RE: Automatic bombardment triggered by amphibious assault - 6/25/2011 6:20:45 AM

SqzMyLemon

Posts: 2130
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

hjalmar99,

Just a hello to another Albertan

. Whereabouts if you don't mind me asking? Sorry to hijack the thread apbarog.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to hjalmar99)

Post #: 8

RE: Automatic bombardment triggered by amphibious assault - 6/25/2011 11:16:07 AM

hjalmar99

Posts: 229
Joined: 8/2/2005
From: Alberta
Status: offline

King Edward Park / Bonnie Doon . . . Edmonton.

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)

Post #: 9

RE: Automatic bombardment triggered by amphibious assault - 6/25/2011 4:26:30 PM

SqzMyLemon

Posts: 2130
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

King Edward Park / Bonnie Doon . . . Edmonton.

Wow, what are the chances. I grew up in Bonnie Doon, now living in Caernarvon in Castledowns.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to hjalmar99)

Post #: 10

RE: Automatic bombardment triggered by amphibious assault - 6/25/2011 7:49:04 PM

crsutton

Posts: 6201
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

In apbarog's example, the intent was to supply the Allied troops, and it was done to overcome the major supply suckage that China has against the troops in Moulmein. It would have been nice to have a "supply valve" in Rangoon to allow for the direction of supply flow.

There's a new concept: "Supply Valves" at major traffic nodes . . . to direct the flow of supplies.

This does not obviate the need for the removal of invasion-triggered automatic-bombardments. Give the player an optiom in this case.

Actually, one of the later beta allows you to now stockpile supplies at a particular base. That is you can turn stockpiling on and supplies will flow to units in the base but not out of the base.

_____________________________

"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." Godwin's Law

(in reply to hjalmar99)

Post #: 11

RE: Automatic bombardment triggered by amphibious assault - 6/25/2011 8:53:54 PM

hjalmar99

Posts: 229
Joined: 8/2/2005
From: Alberta
Status: offline

quote:

you can turn stockpiling on and supplies will flow to units in the base but not out of the base.

It still does not address the matter of direction of the flow. I guess one could "dam up" supply in bases one link away from the node, but that still won't help the flow in the direction without a base. One solution could be to allow HQ units to stockpile supply in the same manner as bases. That'll be another reason for players to manage HQs with greater care and attention.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 12

RE: Automatic bombardment triggered by amphibious assault - 6/25/2011 9:08:45 PM

darbymcd

Posts: 208
Joined: 12/6/2005
Status: offline

I feel your pain apbarog, I have often silently cursed the supply use that bombardment demands when some isolated garrison blasts away at some xAKLs unloading supplies. But in the end you just need to be a bit zen about it, it really doesn't have a major impact on the game over time. If it matters to the situation, the situation is already lost. In your example, what would have happened if you hadn't bombarded? Just a couple turns later he would bombard and get the same result, or attack and do better. The forces involved didn't change and you are outnumbered by many times in each catagory. So yes it is frustrating, but the only thing that would really change is forcing your opponant to push the buttons to do the same thing a turn or two later.....

(in reply to hjalmar99)

Post #: 13

RE: Automatic bombardment triggered by amphibious assault - 6/25/2011 10:14:18 PM

Shark7

Posts: 6166
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: hjalmar99

In apbarog's example, the intent was to supply the Allied troops, and it was done to overcome the major supply suckage that China has against the troops in Moulmein. It would have been nice to have a "supply valve" in Rangoon to allow for the direction of supply flow.

There's a new concept: "Supply Valves" at major traffic nodes . . . to direct the flow of supplies.

This does not obviate the need for the removal of invasion-triggered automatic-bombardments. Give the player an optiom in this case.

The automatic-bombardment attacks need to be done away with, just like the ability to turn off LI was.

My personal opinion if that any attack is automatically triggered by an opposed amphibious landing it should be a defender DELIBERATE attack. IE you are opposing and attacking them as they come onto the beaches. And even that should not be automatic, but should have to pass a commander aggression check.

_____________________________

aka- Akula

Larry Bond's Harpoon - Commander's Edition

Development Team Member

(in reply to hjalmar99)

Post #: 14

RE: Automatic bombardment triggered by amphibious assault - 6/25/2011 11:50:36 PM

apbarog

Posts: 109
Joined: 5/23/2002
Status: offline

If enemy troops are landing, sure, then automatic bombardment is fine even if self-destructive. But if only supply is being unloaded, then automatic bombardment is not warranted.

Darbymcd, yes, if the Allies bombarded, I'd probably take similar damage. But this is PBEM, and the enemy hasn't bombarded, probably because of the supply shortage described above.

If I was playing a game where there are "no rules", then a single ship unloading supply in a similar situation would be a devious way to win the battle.

In my case, it's just a shame because Moulmein had become a huge defensive battle, and before these automatic bombardments, one that I could win. It's been great fun, but once this dam breaks, the region will be lost.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 15