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

Airfield damage repair supply equation.

 
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 >> The War Room >> Airfield damage repair supply equation. Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/13/2012 3:15:58 AM   
bigred


Posts: 2892
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
Hi all. Does anyone know what the supply cost is to repair one point of damage to a level 5 airfield?

Thank you, bigred

< Message edited by bigred -- 7/13/2012 3:19:14 AM >


_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400
Post #: 1
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/13/2012 4:01:45 AM   
Dan Nichols


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline
Zero.

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 2
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/13/2012 6:29:32 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5766
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
Correct.  Repairs do not consume supply directly.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Dan Nichols)
Post #: 3
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/13/2012 3:40:44 PM   
Schlemiel

 

Posts: 154
Joined: 10/20/2011
Status: offline
Don't they use engineer time which consumes some supply like they would if you were expanding the airfield? I'm not exactly sure on that, but it seems intuitively likely to me.

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 4
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/13/2012 3:48:07 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 2069
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline
I too thought engineer activity consumes supply. On a related note, if you put ALL units with engineers on "rest/training" does the hex still repair damage albeit at a greatly reduced rate, or does the work stop all together? I've read often where folks DON'T want things repaired as it wastes supplies in an effort to patch up an airfield (for example) that the player has no intention of using! Ha/

(in reply to Schlemiel)
Post #: 5
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/13/2012 4:16:34 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3700
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
1. Engineers in rest mode do not work. Same principle as AA unit in rest mode does not fire at enemy aircraft.

2. Engineers at work consume supply except for .....

3. Engineers repairing facilities do not consume supply,

4. Facilities are repaired in a set order. Thus if you want your port fully repaired, and you will always want your port fully repaired, one simply must repair the damaged airfield first before the engineers will turn towards rehabilitating the port. Not to mention that building fortifications is the last cab on the rank, so no fortifications will ever be built until all facility damage has been repaired.

Alfred

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 6
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/13/2012 5:05:44 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9786
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Schlemiel

Don't they use engineer time which consumes some supply like they would if you were expanding the airfield? I'm not exactly sure on that, but it seems intuitively likely to me.



In a time in the distant past, in a land far, far away in (IIRC called WitP) supply used to be consumed as suggested for the repair of facilities...

...but the masses suggested it should be otherwise, because the masses felt that it was unrealistic to be able to bomb a port or airfield and have supply consumed to fix those things...because the fixing happened automatically without player control....and when that happened the carefully accumulated supply was no longer available for the armies which were using it to feed themselves while under siege...so the powers that be changed the reality that we play in and we have what we have today.

_____________________________

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 Schlemiel)
Post #: 7
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/13/2012 5:11:04 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
4. Facilities are repaired in a set order. Thus if you want your port fully repaired, and you will always want your port fully repaired, one simply must repair the damaged airfield first before the engineers will turn towards rehabilitating the port. Not to mention that building fortifications is the last cab on the rank, so no fortifications will ever be built until all facility damage has been repaired.

Alfred


This is a real weak point of AE. Allied bombers hit Iwo Jima for months before the landings, and no way did the Japs stop fortifying every time the airfields were damaged. Considering all the effort that went into establishing limits and restrictions on landing and loading troops and equipment, surely someone should have been able to create a more flexible system for engineering efforts. Can you imagine the Garrison Commander's response if his Engineering Officer told him "I know we don't have any airplanes, and all the ships have pulled out for safer waters..., but the RULES say we've got to stop building bunkers and trenches and spend all our efforts fixing the airfield and port any time they are damaged." It's not a very realistic restriction.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 8
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/13/2012 8:19:46 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 2069
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
4. Facilities are repaired in a set order. Thus if you want your port fully repaired, and you will always want your port fully repaired, one simply must repair the damaged airfield first before the engineers will turn towards rehabilitating the port. Not to mention that building fortifications is the last cab on the rank, so no fortifications will ever be built until all facility damage has been repaired.

Alfred


This is a real weak point of AE. Allied bombers hit Iwo Jima for months before the landings, and no way did the Japs stop fortifying every time the airfields were damaged. Considering all the effort that went into establishing limits and restrictions on landing and loading troops and equipment, surely someone should have been able to create a more flexible system for engineering efforts. Can you imagine the Garrison Commander's response if his Engineering Officer told him "I know we don't have any airplanes, and all the ships have pulled out for safer waters..., but the RULES say we've got to stop building bunkers and trenches and spend all our efforts fixing the airfield and port any time they are damaged." It's not a very realistic restriction.

Alfred, I know you are loath to criticize the developers, especially given the 20/20 of hindsight, but I think Mike makes sense and that this rule should be looked at. Not that I know how involved this would be for a "patch" but it seems to be suggested that our observations are taken into consideration. Would it be possible for us to petition that this be considered for a future version of the game? Interestingly I'm not in agreement with the idea that repairs do NOT cost supply points. I think they should and I for one know that I would target airfields or ports to chew the supplies up. Having said that, I think it only fair then that my opposite number would have the option NOT to repair those facilities. These are two sides to the same argument. Thoughts?

Hal

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 9
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/13/2012 10:57:25 PM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4561
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
This is a real weak point of AE. Allied bombers hit Iwo Jima for months before the landings, and no way did the Japs stop fortifying every time the airfields were damaged.


I agree that the solution is suboptimal.


But you mention only one side of what is not covered by the game. Heres the other: Bombing attacks do not drop forts.

So, while it is true that the Japanese continued to fortify the island while under bombing attack it is also true that many of those fortifications were again destroyed by
the Allied bombers. So if fort building is possible without repairing the damage first it must be equally possible to reduce fortifications by air attack. If this does not happen
a major reason for sustained air attacks on enemy positions - softening up the defenses - is not in the game (currently it is abstracted by the ability to interrupt fort building
by damaging the base).

Can you imagine the outcry when massed 4E formation reduce every Japanese fort building effort to rubble?

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 10
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/14/2012 12:21:09 AM   
dr.hal


Posts: 2069
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline
But rubble itself produces a fantastic defensive position! Witness Monte Casino!

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 11
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/14/2012 12:36:21 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
This is a real weak point of AE. Allied bombers hit Iwo Jima for months before the landings, and no way did the Japs stop fortifying every time the airfields were damaged.


I agree that the solution is suboptimal.

But you mention only one side of what is not covered by the game. Heres the other: Bombing attacks do not drop forts.

So, while it is true that the Japanese continued to fortify the island while under bombing attack it is also true that many of those fortifications were again destroyed by
the Allied bombers. So if fort building is possible without repairing the damage first it must be equally possible to reduce fortifications by air attack. If this does not happen
a major reason for sustained air attacks on enemy positions - softening up the defenses - is not in the game (currently it is abstracted by the ability to interrupt fort building
by damaging the base).

Can you imagine the outcry when massed 4E formation reduce every Japanese fort building effort to rubble?


There was only ONE instance in the Second World War where massed bombing destroyed the defense of an island..., and that was the Italian island of Paternalia (sic) in the Med. Even there, it wasn't the defenses that were crushed, but the morale of the garrison.

So I basically agree with the Designers that bombing should not have major effects on forts. Disruption of the troops (and engineers), yes..., but even without air cover the defenses of places like Corregadore or Betio or Iwo Jima survived massive bombardments (sometimes for months) without significant reduction.

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 12
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/14/2012 12:59:26 AM   
bigred


Posts: 2892
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
4. Facilities are repaired in a set order. Thus if you want your port fully repaired, and you will always want your port fully repaired, one simply must repair the damaged airfield first before the engineers will turn towards rehabilitating the port. Not to mention that building fortifications is the last cab on the rank, so no fortifications will ever be built until all facility damage has been repaired.

Alfred


This is a real weak point of AE. Allied bombers hit Iwo Jima for months before the landings, and no way did the Japs stop fortifying every time the airfields were damaged. Considering all the effort that went into establishing limits and restrictions on landing and loading troops and equipment, surely someone should have been able to create a more flexible system for engineering efforts. Can you imagine the Garrison Commander's response if his Engineering Officer told him "I know we don't have any airplanes, and all the ships have pulled out for safer waters..., but the RULES say we've got to stop building bunkers and trenches and spend all our efforts fixing the airfield and port any time they are damaged." It's not a very realistic restriction.

Well, we could request an on/off switch for port/runway/service repair.

< Message edited by bigred -- 7/14/2012 1:01:15 AM >


_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 13
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/14/2012 1:09:20 AM   
bigred


Posts: 2892
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
The above answers eliminate one question but cause me another question. In my AAR against FatR I just screen printed results of jap attacks for 1-27-44. His results look bad like he has no supply. But I know he is running convoys into rangoon and his attacks are only 2/3 hexes away from rangoon. I have been night bombing rangoon w/ about 30 b24s every night. I wonder if the bombing is causing his supply not to transport forward to his attacking units.
FatR should be in supply. Supply is not listed as an attack issue(-).




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by bigred -- 7/14/2012 2:58:19 AM >


_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 14
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/14/2012 5:15:25 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3700
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
bigred,

I wouldn't draw the conclusion that supply is not moving towards the enemy units at hex 56,53.

1. Bombing does not impede the auto overland movement of supplies.

2. Bombing base infrastructure per se does not lead to increased consumption of supplies as repair of the damaged infrastructure does not consume supplies.

3. Bombing of an airfield can result on a direct hit on the supply depot and that will destroy some of the stockpiled supply.

4. Bombing of a port can also result in a direct hit on the fuel storage tanks (in addition to the supply depot) and that will destroy some of the stockpiled fuel.

5. The combat report shows a negative modifier against "fatigue". By far the most common reason for having high fatigue is the lack of R&R (in a well stocked base) brought about by constant fighting/movement, particularly in jungle terrain.

The conclusion I would draw from that combat was that your opponent rushed into battle units which had not been allowed time to recover from earlier exertions.

dr.hal,

Ah, if I were the Generalismo in charge of AE development, there would be several things I would do differently but you are correct that I am loathe to criticise the developers for ultimately having a different approach. For the simple fact is that AE is highly abstracted, despite the veneer it gives of being detailed, and accordingly it is always a subjective decision how to handle any issue.

Furthermore everything is closely entwined, which most people who regularly demand a "fix" for a perceived problem simply do not comprehend. In his post #10 above LoBaron makes this interconnectedness well.

When you start thinking about the appropriateness of consuming supplies to effect infrastructure repairs, you quickly come across the huge limitations imposed by the abstracted concept of "supplies". In a recent thread discussing festung Palembang, Bullwinkle made the correct point that the real cost in repairing infrastructure IRL is not the food consumption but concrete, steel girders etc, all of which are represented in this game (and yes it is a game and not a simulation notwithstanding what others say exactly because of these abstractions) as part of the output of Heavy Industry. So if you start to think about costing infrastructure repairs you would need to not only consider expending supplies to allow the engineers to feed themselves as they work but also the expenditure of Heavy Industry points to pay for concrete and steel.

Once one starts to go down this path of trying to "realistically" cost this activity, one also has to revisit the existing expense incurred when expanding Japanese industry. It would be a perverse outcome to find that filling in craters in already built concrete runways ended up costing more in supplies and HI points than expanding an aircraft factory.

Here is another point. If we are talking about trying to make it more realistic, why should the consumption of HI points come from a global pool, requiring no explicit transportation to the location (and therefore prone to enemy interdiction) whereas consumption of supply points would come only from the location itself.

Of course the developers sidestepped all the above issues by their abstracted solution. In many respects their subjective solution is much more elegant than trying to "realistically" deal with the above issues. Not to mention the reduction in micromanagement inherent in their solution. More micromanagement does not per se make a game better, or more appealing to potential customers in general. Even if they "merely" limited themselves to going back to the classical WITP solution of consuming supplies to effect repairs, those who criticised that earlier approach would reappear on the scene now.

To get back to your specific question. Yes, just left to me, I would be in favour of imposing a cost on repairs. But, as always it is a much more complex issue and would necessitate the allocation of developer resources which simply are not available. I understand the reasoning why it operates as it does now and it has the huge benefit that it has a logic which is generally consistent with the other game elements. I'm not convinced that my solution would be any more elegant or more efficacious and in the absence of it being demonstrably so, we are left only with subjective criteria. Which brings me back to my fundamental point that when it comes to subjectivity, one should always allow the developers of a game the freedom to exercise the whole of their vision and not compromise it with inconsistent add ons.

As to Monte Casino, yes the rubble was a great benefit to the defenders precisely because there was no "fortification" present before the rubble appeared courtesy of the monastery bombing. Without the rubble Monte Casino already represented a difficult objective due to its fine location, the quality of the defenders, the lack of quality of the American unit and the overall lack of Allied infantry in theatre. Once quality infantry under superior generalship, combined with indirect avenues of attack rather than frontal attack was introduced, the battle ended. Rubble is good but no one will ever settle for it in preference to having prebuilt pillboxes with enfilade fire supported by preset killing ranges over open approaches for artillery fire.

Alfred

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 15
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/14/2012 2:46:41 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5766
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1
This is a real weak point of AE. Allied bombers hit Iwo Jima for months before the landings, and no way did the Japs stop fortifying every time the airfields were damaged.


I agree that the solution is suboptimal.

But you mention only one side of what is not covered by the game. Heres the other: Bombing attacks do not drop forts.

So, while it is true that the Japanese continued to fortify the island while under bombing attack it is also true that many of those fortifications were again destroyed by
the Allied bombers. So if fort building is possible without repairing the damage first it must be equally possible to reduce fortifications by air attack. If this does not happen
a major reason for sustained air attacks on enemy positions - softening up the defenses - is not in the game (currently it is abstracted by the ability to interrupt fort building
by damaging the base).

Can you imagine the outcry when massed 4E formation reduce every Japanese fort building effort to rubble?


There was only ONE instance in the Second World War where massed bombing destroyed the defense of an island..., and that was the Italian island of Paternalia (sic) in the Med. Even there, it wasn't the defenses that were crushed, but the morale of the garrison.

So I basically agree with the Designers that bombing should not have major effects on forts. Disruption of the troops (and engineers), yes..., but even without air cover the defenses of places like Corregadore or Betio or Iwo Jima survived massive bombardments (sometimes for months) without significant reduction.

+1

And we have several great examples of the outcomes of the current rules now in AAR's. PzB vs Andy AAR: Christmas Island. This one should be reviewed in detail. I know as a player that I have made significant changes to my play style based upon those outcomes.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 16
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/14/2012 11:58:50 PM   
bigred


Posts: 2892
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2324055&mpage=68&key=
quote:

And we have several great examples of the outcomes of the current rules now in AAR's. PzB vs Andy AAR: Christmas Island.


_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 17
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/15/2012 2:39:40 PM   
bigred


Posts: 2892
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline
This is the other nearby attack. this seems to me to be too much jap casualties.



Ground combat at 55,51 (near Prome)

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 19565 troops, 164 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 683

Defending force 20207 troops, 485 guns, 122 vehicles, Assault Value = 593

Japanese adjusted assault: 184

Allied adjusted defense: 2333

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 12

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

Japanese ground losses:
5127 casualties reported
Squads: 121 destroyed, 221 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 35 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 6 disabled


Allied ground losses:
149 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 31 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Guns lost 5 (1 destroyed, 4 disabled)


Assaulting units:
Guards Mixed Brigade
38th Division

Defending units:
75th Indian Brigade
8th Australian Division
11th (East African) Division
23rd AA Bde
501st Coast AA Regiment
I US Amphib Corps
108th Tank Attack AT Rgt /9


Attachment (1)

< Message edited by bigred -- 7/15/2012 2:45:08 PM >


_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 18
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/15/2012 3:42:50 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3700
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Why do you think Japan should have suffered fewer casualties.

1. Die rolls play a major part in the game.

2. Japan, the smaller force, attacked a larger force.

3. The attack took place in good defensive terrain.

4. Allied firepower was much stronger. It has been said before many times, but still players don't seem to grasp it. It is firepower which ultimately rules the battlefield, not assault value.

5. There were no Japanese support units whereas the Allies did have support units.

6. The Allies had many more support squads present and whilst their combat contribution does not show up in the assault value on the offense they do materially assist the defence.

7. The Allies benefitted from better leaders.

Alfred

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 19
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/16/2012 7:55:30 AM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1696
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: bigred

This is the other nearby attack. this seems to me to be too much jap casualties.



Ground combat at 55,51 (near Prome)



That result is totally silly for a one day. Historically that kind of infantry battles in Pacific/Burma theatre lasted several days or even couple weeks, now we get one week's casualties in one day. (Compare that for example japanese counterattack during Bougainville campaing).

Land combat model is not very good for a game with daily turns, and we get unrealistic results. Land combat pace is way too high.

(in reply to bigred)
Post #: 20
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/16/2012 11:26:11 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

That result is totally silly for a one day. Historically that kind of infantry battles in Pacific/Burma theatre lasted several days or even couple weeks, now we get one week's casualties in one day. (Compare that for example japanese counterattack during Bougainville campaing).

Land combat model is not very good for a game with daily turns, and we get unrealistic results. Land combat pace is way too high.


I don't know about that. When you attack an equal force possessing far superior firepower in an established defensive position, you usually get your teeth kicked in. And you did. What's so strange about it?

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 21
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/16/2012 2:06:02 PM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1696
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

That result is totally silly for a one day. Historically that kind of infantry battles in Pacific/Burma theatre lasted several days or even couple weeks, now we get one week's casualties in one day. (Compare that for example japanese counterattack during Bougainville campaing).

Land combat model is not very good for a game with daily turns, and we get unrealistic results. Land combat pace is way too high.


I don't know about that. When you attack an equal force possessing far superior firepower in an established defensive position, you usually get your teeth kicked in. And you did. What's so strange about it?



Don't get me wrong, I think those casualties are OK for that kind of battle, but the battle should last much longer, days or maybe a week. Game pace is too fast because massive land battles can happen in one day. Daily turns are not really suitable simulating Pacific land war.

Bigred's result reminds of japanese couterattack in Bougainville, where IJA lost about 33-50 % of their men. But (from my memory) even the most intensive fighting took 3 days, and entire battle about 2 weeks. Not one day.

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 22
RE: Airfield damage repair supply equation. - 7/19/2012 7:03:57 AM   
bigred


Posts: 2892
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

That result is totally silly for a one day. Historically that kind of infantry battles in Pacific/Burma theatre lasted several days or even couple weeks, now we get one week's casualties in one day. (Compare that for example japanese counterattack during Bougainville campaing).

Land combat model is not very good for a game with daily turns, and we get unrealistic results. Land combat pace is way too high.


I don't know about that. When you attack an equal force possessing far superior firepower in an established defensive position, you usually get your teeth kicked in. And you did. What's so strange about it?



Don't get me wrong, I think those casualties are OK for that kind of battle, but the battle should last much longer, days or maybe a week. Game pace is too fast because massive land battles can happen in one day. Daily turns are not really suitable simulating Pacific land war.

Bigred's result reminds of japanese couterattack in Bougainville, where IJA lost about 33-50 % of their men. But (from my memory) even the most intensive fighting took 3 days, and entire battle about 2 weeks. Not one day.

agreed w/ the land combat resolution, seems like 4/5th less supply and casualites per turn would be more realistic. However, I think the r&R time needed to rebuild a depleted unit is on target.

_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 23
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> Airfield damage repair supply equation. 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

0.105