Matrix Games Forums

Happy Easter!Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser Trailer
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Attack casualties, a little extreme

 
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 >> Attack casualties, a little extreme Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/26/2013 8:16:35 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5030
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
Rather high casualties for the IJA.
Sorry the list is so long!
Of course a real person wouldn't have attacked

Ground combat at Tokyo (114,60)
Japanese Deliberate attack
Attacking force 92236 troops, 1300 guns, 349 vehicles, Assault Value = 6392
Defending force 232743 troops, 3225 guns, 8241 vehicles, Assault Value = 8422
Japanese adjusted assault: 586
Allied adjusted defense: 35457
Japanese assault odds: 1 to 60
Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), preparation(-)
Attacker:
Japanese ground losses:
50009 casualties reported
Squads: 1340 destroyed, 1693 disabled
Non Combat: 218 destroyed, 566 disabled
Engineers: 30 destroyed, 155 disabled
Guns lost 440 (163 destroyed, 277 disabled)
Vehicles lost 6 (1 destroyed, 5 disabled)
Allied ground losses:
254 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 37 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 12 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 23 disabled
Vehicles lost 25 (11 destroyed, 14 disabled)
Assaulting units:
140th Division
302nd Ind.Infantry Battalion
230th Division
Araki Force
1st Raiding Force
36th Ind.Mixed Brigade
1st Ind.Mixed Regiment
50th Division
34th Ind.Mixed Brigade
42nd Division
3rd Guards Division
32nd Division
1st Ind.Tank Brigade
303rd Ind.Infantry Battalion
96th Ind.Mixed Brigade
3rd Militia Division
Guards Depot Division
107th Division
1st Guards Division
321st Division
201st Division
354th Division
8th SP Gun Battalion
26th Tank Regiment
4th Militia Division
Kagoshima Force SNLF
117th Ind.Mixed Brigade
234th Division
14th Ind.Mixed Regiment
4th Raiding Regiment
2nd Raiding Force
6th Depot Division
66th Ind.Mixed Brigade
57th Depot Division
6th Air Army
6th Medium Mortar Battalion
6th Air Division
20th RF Gun Battalion
5th Medium Mortar Battalion
19th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
128th Ind.Mixed Brigade
25th Air Flotilla
111th AA Regiment
64th Field AA Battalion
105th Machine Canno AA Battalion
4th Field AF Construction Battalion
26th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
11th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
52nd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
14th Air Fleet
15th Special Base Force
118th AA Regiment
53rd Army
48th JAAF AF Bn
Nanyo Cho JNAF Base Force
96th Field AA Battalion
69th Construction Battalion
6th Ind. Field Artillery Battalion
49th JAAF AF Bn
8th Ind. Field Artillery Regiment
114th AA Regiment
3rd Air Fleet
1st Machine Cannon AA Battalion
133rd AA Regiment
61st Air Flotilla
19th Field AF Construction Battalion
1st Air Defense AA Battalion
78th Field AA Machinecannon Company
63rd Field AA Battalion
52nd Construction Battalion
62nd Air Flotilla
29th Ind. Engineer Regiment
4th Medium Mortar Battalion
36th Ind. Hvy.Art. Battalion
187th JAAF AF Bn
Takao Naval Base Force
4th JNAF AF Unit
34th Ind. Engineer Regiment
10th Air Division
5th Shin'yo
4th Air Army
39th Field AA Battalion
72nd Field AA Battalion
22nd Field AF Construction Battalion
1st Air Army
103rd Machine Canno AA Battalion
71st Field AA Battalion
37th Ind. Engineer Regiment
194th JAAF AF Bn
95th Field AA Battalion
6th Shipping Regiment
11th Air Fleet
79th Field AA Machinecannon Company
104th Machine Canno AA Battalion
2nd Medium Mortar Battalion
6th JNAF AF Unit
119th AA Regiment
42nd Ind. Engineer Regiment
23rd Field AF Construction Battalion
3rd Rocket Gun Battalion
Kogetsu JAAF Base Force
3rd Medium Mortar Battalion
1st Shipping Engineer Regiment
139th JAAF AF Bn
14th JAAF AF Bn
21st Special Base Force
General Defence Army
65th Field AA Battalion
24th Field AF Construction Battalion
Yokosuka Naval Base Force
36th Army
68th Field AA Battalion
22nd JAAF Base Force
25th Special Base Force
16th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
44th Division
61st Field AA Battalion
11th Air Flotilla
4th Machine Cannon AA Battalion
52nd Air Division
10th Special Base Force
101st Machine Canno AA Battalion
77th JAAF AF Bn
Kashiwa JAAF Base Force
94th Field AA Battalion
66th Field AA Battalion
7th Medium Mortar Battalion
12th Area Army
27th RF Gun Battalion
3rd Ind. AA Battalion
1st Air Defense AA Regiment
Sasebo Naval Base Force
77th Field AA Battalion
62nd Special AA Machinecannon Company
19th RF Gun Battalion
73rd JAAF AF Bn
22nd RF Gun Battalion
Yokosuka Repl.Art Regiment
106th JAAF AF Bn
Nampo Shoto JNAF Base Force
7th Air Division
63rd Construction Battalion
31st Med. Field Artillery Battalion
16th Area Army
17th Army
4th Ind. AA Battalion
67th Ind. AA Battalion
62nd Field AA Battalion
14th Hvy.Artillery Regiment
2nd Base Force
68th Ind. AA Battalion
69th Field AA Battalion
67th Construction Battalion
67th Field AA Battalion
18th Field AF Construction Battalion
78th Field AA Battalion
115th AA Regiment
13th Field AF Construction Battalion
18th RF Gun Battalion
188th JAAF AF Bn
175th JAAF AF Bn
11th Ind.AA Gun Co
26th Air Flotilla
62nd Construction Battalion
102nd Machine Canno AA Battalion
1st Rocket Gun Battalion
Kanto JNAF Base Force
116th AA Regiment
89th Field AA Battalion
Chofu JAAF Base Force

Defending units:
8th Infantry Division
6th USMC Tank Battalion
19th Motorised Division
131st Combat Engineer Regiment
CenPac Amphib Tank Brigade
XIII Corps Combat Engineer Regiment
2nd USMC Tank Battalion
98th Infantry Division
2nd USMC Amphb Tank Battalion
X Corps Combat Engineer Regiment
XXIV Corps Combat Engineer Regiment
37th Infantry Division
3rd USMC Tank Battalion
V Corps Combat Engineer Regiment
96th Infantry Division
2/9th Armoured Regiment
7th Infantry Division
763rd Tank Battalion
31st Armoured Division
13th Armored Division
87th Infantry Division
50th Tank Brigade
SWPac Amphib Tank Brigade
711th Tank Battalion
1st USMC Tank Battalion
12th Infantry (PS) Division
XIV Corps Combat Engineer Regiment
40th Infantry Division
7th Australian Division
25th Indian Division
255th Indian Tank Brigade
10th Indian Division
1st USMC Amphb Tank Battalion
236th Combat Engineer Regiment
6th USMC Field Artillery Battalion
7th USMC Field Artillery Battalion
XXIV Corps Arty
2/11th Field Regiment
XXIV US Corps
9th USMC Field Artillery Battalion
X US Corps
5th USMC Field Artillery Battalion
422nd Rocket Field Artillery Battalion
10th USMC Field Artillery Battalion
85/88/98th Mortar Regiment
11th USMC Field Artillery Battalion
24th Indian Engineer Battalion




_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum
Post #: 1
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/26/2013 10:17:08 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1098
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
Woof! Thats pretty gnary! Gosh, palying stack on stack makes for some interesting results, yeah?

How about you try putting every single Chinese unit in one big stack and every single Japanese unit in another big stack and let them have at it. You can end the game with one big stack. Just how big is your winkie?.

Darn, we never knew anyone would be oh so gamey aggressive, but the engine allows it, so black jack and up your back.

Have no pity for your problem.

JWE

_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 2
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/26/2013 11:31:12 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 6838
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
The Allies have almost a three to one advantage in guns, and the guns are much bigger and better.
Looks like the ratio of Allied tanks is even greater. And, they have what? Pershings, Shermans, Jacksons, vs the usual crap load of Japanese tanks and tanketts?
Not to mention a 3-1 ratio in combat squads. All of which in 1945 have about twice the firepower of a Japanese squad.

The only real surprise for me is that you are surprised about the results at all....

Oh wait, Japan only lost six vehicles! This game is totally screwed...

< Message edited by crsutton -- 3/26/2013 11:33:37 PM >


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 3
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/26/2013 11:32:38 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 3856
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: vermont
Status: offline
+++1

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 4
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/27/2013 12:31:13 AM   
tocaff


Posts: 4489
Joined: 10/12/2006
From: USA now in Brasil
Status: online
A buzz saw was sitting there and you threw outclassed troops into it. Even if you had outnumbered the Allied force they would've shredded the attack. Firepower can do that.

_____________________________

Todd

I never thought that doing an AAR would be so time consuming and difficult.
www.matrixgames.com/forum/tm.asp?m=2080768

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 5
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/27/2013 12:53:02 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5030
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

Woof! Thats pretty gnary! Gosh, palying stack on stack makes for some interesting results, yeah?

How about you try putting every single Chinese unit in one big stack and every single Japanese unit in another big stack and let them have at it. You can end the game with one big stack. Just how big is your winkie?.

Darn, we never knew anyone would be oh so gamey aggressive, but the engine allows it, so black jack and up your back.

Have no pity for your problem.

JWE

Its easy to see why so many people think that JWE should have stayed away.

Why develop a scenario and then be an arsehole when people get towards the end of it.

Its not a set up, its getting towards the end of my bashing the AI in the Downfall scenario.
At the same time there is another large group on the Nth Coast(map) of Japan, about 200k troops to 300k troops plus all japanese towns have been garrisoned.

The key to this is that the IJA must be out of supply as that has happened in previous games

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 6
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/27/2013 12:55:01 AM   
obvert


Posts: 6256
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

A buzz saw was sitting there and you threw outclassed troops into it. Even if you had outnumbered the Allied force they would've shredded the attack. Firepower can do that.


I think you're reading this incorrectly. Looks like JeffK is playing the Allies vs the AI and it attacked his massive stack. "Of course a real person wouldn't have attacked."

I'm thinking he is just interested to show this result, being 50,009 to 224 (!!) in casualties, which is quite a discrepancy. I think if every soldier in the IJA stack had randomly thrown a grenade out of their trenches and pillboxes they would have taken out more than 224 guys from the 232,743 on the other side of the barbed wire!


_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to tocaff)
Post #: 7
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/27/2013 12:56:33 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5030
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

The Allies have almost a three to one advantage in guns, and the guns are much bigger and better.
Looks like the ratio of Allied tanks is even greater. And, they have what? Pershings, Shermans, Jacksons, vs the usual crap load of Japanese tanks and tanketts?
Not to mention a 3-1 ratio in combat squads. All of which in 1945 have about twice the firepower of a Japanese squad.

The only real surprise for me is that you are surprised about the results at all....

Oh wait, Japan only lost six vehicles! This game is totally screwed...


Not everything posted here is a complaint.
(Who else can post a combat in Tokyo)
If I was to be complaining it was that the Allies only lost 254 men, around 200-1 losses.

Not surprised at the result, just posting it to show how extreme things can be, added to the IJA disadvantages is that they were probably out of supply and that the AI attacked on the turn after I entered Tokyo.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 8
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/27/2013 8:41:54 AM   
castor troy


Posts: 12182
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
besides that it is a totally crazy fight with these two stacks, the fact that there were only 12 dead soldiers on the Allied side when nearly 100,000 Japanese attack makes it a little funny.

Forget that example, the engine isn't built for such a fight, just something we have to accept. Problem is that both against the AI and against a PBEM player, one would do probably everything to defend Tokyo and then how do you want to try and take an urban heavy hex? Stack vs stack.

< Message edited by castor troy -- 3/27/2013 8:43:05 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 9
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/27/2013 7:35:42 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 6838
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
And, it does not look as if they Japanese were low on supply. According to the combat report anyways.

But as CT says. When you get that far out of the norm the game is not going to deal with it too well.

< Message edited by crsutton -- 3/27/2013 7:36:34 PM >


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 10
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/27/2013 9:05:14 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 3986
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: obvert


quote:

ORIGINAL: tocaff

A buzz saw was sitting there and you threw outclassed troops into it. Even if you had outnumbered the Allied force they would've shredded the attack. Firepower can do that.


I think you're reading this incorrectly. Looks like JeffK is playing the Allies vs the AI and it attacked his massive stack. "Of course a real person wouldn't have attacked."

I'm thinking he is just interested to show this result, being 50,009 to 224 (!!) in casualties, which is quite a discrepancy. I think if every soldier in the IJA stack had randomly thrown a grenade out of their trenches and pillboxes they would have taken out more than 224 guys from the 232,743 on the other side of the barbed wire!



It's only March 42' in my AI game I recently started, but Japan keeps throwing stack after stack at me in the mountains... Adjusted assult is sometimes 200 (Them) to 4000 against me and they just get slaughtered. Same at Manila...I finally put all of my troops in strategic mode in Manila or else it would have never falled...I wanted to have some historical sense to my game..


_____________________________

Follow our WiTPAE team PBEM game against bilbow and hartwig.modrow http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2965846&mpage=1&key=?

Follow my WITPAE PBEM game against Schanilec. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3495605

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 11
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/27/2013 9:06:07 PM   
jeffk3510


Posts: 3986
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK


quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

The Allies have almost a three to one advantage in guns, and the guns are much bigger and better.
Looks like the ratio of Allied tanks is even greater. And, they have what? Pershings, Shermans, Jacksons, vs the usual crap load of Japanese tanks and tanketts?
Not to mention a 3-1 ratio in combat squads. All of which in 1945 have about twice the firepower of a Japanese squad.

The only real surprise for me is that you are surprised about the results at all....

Oh wait, Japan only lost six vehicles! This game is totally screwed...


Not everything posted here is a complaint.
(Who else can post a combat in Tokyo)
If I was to be complaining it was that the Allies only lost 254 men, around 200-1 losses.

Not surprised at the result, just posting it to show how extreme things can be, added to the IJA disadvantages is that they were probably out of supply and that the AI attacked on the turn after I entered Tokyo.


I didn't think you were complaining at all, and I figured it was a late GC or Downfall game and this was about all Japan had left. I am glad you posted.. curious to see all different kinds of things.

Thanks.

_____________________________

Follow our WiTPAE team PBEM game against bilbow and hartwig.modrow http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2965846&mpage=1&key=?

Follow my WITPAE PBEM game against Schanilec. http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3495605

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 12
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/28/2013 12:08:14 AM   
Symon


Posts: 1098
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
Its easy to see why so many people think that JWE should have stayed away.

Why develop a scenario and then be an arsehole when people get towards the end of it.

Gosh, how simply wonderful for you. Get to the end of a scenario and think the engine is gonna change just 'cause you want to play with Army gorups. Woof !!

Speaking of woof !! Beaudy the Wonder Dog got his summer haircut yesterday. All around kennel cut and dremel on his nails and his paws sanded and trimmed. Looks really good. They put some cologne into his bath and sprinkled some smell good powder on him. He still drools but he smells better.

Yippy Ki Ciao. JWE

_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 13
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/28/2013 1:00:23 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3567
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
I didn't think Beaudy the Wonder Dog merited a summer haircut. Now if we were talking about a bearded collie, they absolutely appreciate a summer haircut.

Will Beaudy miss the wind blowing through his "hair" as he drives through Paris?

Alfred

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 14
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/28/2013 3:46:45 AM   
panzer cat

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 10/2/2011
From: The occupied Southland
Status: offline
Spears vs machineguns

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 15
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/28/2013 4:55:41 AM   
jmalter

 

Posts: 1112
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline
"At the age of thirty-seven she realized she'd never
ride through Paris in a sports-car w/ the warm wind in her hair"

- Marianne Faithfull, "The Ballad of Lucy Jordan"

cheers, Alfred!

(in reply to panzer cat)
Post #: 16
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/28/2013 5:10:26 AM   
Sredni

 

Posts: 700
Joined: 9/30/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
Does purposefully derailing a thread count as trolling?

One of the biggest negatives about this forum community is how quickly people pile on when the central clique is threatened.

(in reply to jmalter)
Post #: 17
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/28/2013 8:06:13 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1098
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
I didn't think Beaudy the Wonder Dog merited a summer haircut. Now if we were talking about a bearded collie, they absolutely appreciate a summer haircut.

Will Beaudy miss the wind blowing through his "hair" as he drives through Paris?

Alfred

Hi Alfred,
Yes, Beaudy's summer haircut is a bit premature, but 90 heat and 90 humidity is'nt too far away. No Paris this year. Fcharton is doing a fabulous job of running interference with the Ministry of Defense for me, and way better than I could have done, myself. So my next trip to France is probably gonna have to be to Nemours to help Francois build his dams.

But, to keep this from getting too far OT, Beaudy the Wonder Dog says: The engine calculates things based on mathemetical algorithms expressed in the code. It's kinda, sorta, Gaussian, but not. There's sweet spots, and lots of gamey opportunities for things at the bottom or the top of the code's 3 sigma extents. Kiddles can run fragments, Kiddles can run army groups. Liddle Kiddles can do jack all. The game is pretty good at nominal confrontations, but going way outside the box, will cause disproportionate results. Bizarro Play = Bizarro Results, and complaining about the results is a sure way to get whacked, or ignored, depending.

Woof, woof!
[ed] Beaudy says "wait a minute Batman, no way you are going to France without me. I mean, I want to meet Francois too! Just because I drool, don't mean people don't love me. You could sail to La Palice or up to St Malo and just say hi, and there's tons of market trains going North, and nobody will ever know. I can even deal with the folks that munch on saucisse, un petit d'onion, pain de campagne, oh! my little nubbin of a tail is just quivering with anticipation. You Euro guys are pretty neet. Dad is a South American kinda ex-pat dude, but I do like French food and I sure would like to wander down the Champs Elysees and have the opportunity to widdle on one of the supports of the Tour Eiffel. I mean, I like it, I just want to mark it. La Tour Eiffel par Beaudy.


< Message edited by Symon -- 3/28/2013 8:31:10 PM >


_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 18
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/28/2013 8:17:50 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 5785
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline
As said above, if you play reasonably, you get reasonable results.

In other words (I think it was Terminus): "Garbage in, Garbage out". (not about OP post)

Lot of people do not understand WHY some results happen and complain. AE gives ability to play non-historically and it's one of it's charms. Just have to accept it can backfire.

It's often bad dice rolls combined with bad decisions..and if you think about disjointed CV air strikes, read Shattered Sword.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 19
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/28/2013 10:17:56 PM   
Reg


Posts: 2162
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: Victoria, Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Symon

But, to keep this from getting too far OT, Beaudy the Wonder Dog says: The engine calculates things based on mathemetical algorithms expressed in the code. It's kinda, sorta, Gaussian, but not. There's sweet spots, and lots of gamey opportunities for things at the bottom or the top of the code's 3 sigma extents. Kiddles can run fragments, Kiddles can run army groups. Liddle Kiddles can do jack all. The game is pretty good at nominal confrontations, but going way outside the box, will cause disproportionate results. Bizarro Play = Bizarro Results, and complaining about the results is a sure way to get whacked, or ignored, depending.


But that doesn't mean that once identified, measures can't be put in place to keep players in the linear portion of the algorithm. I believe that stacking limits go some way toward addressing border conditions and maybe we should consider similar measures where extreme play exposes other ridiculous situations.

I'll add a real life situation. A long while ago , we had an aircraft inflight problem that they had never encountered before and no emergency checklist existed so the first thing they did was jump into the simulator to predict what the aircraft was likely to do. Personally I think they were wasting their time (but they had to do something) because the situation had never been encountered before, how was it going to be included in the simulation's flight model. I suspect also that situation would have been operating in the border conditions where the simulation/flight model fidelity would have been at it's weakest. The end result was a very favorable outcome with no one hurt but I have always wondered about the value adding of the simulator exercise apart for the morale building aspect.

If you want an accurate simulation you have to steer clear of border conditions.



< Message edited by Reg -- 3/28/2013 10:34:25 PM >


_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has introduced a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 20
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/28/2013 11:44:30 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 7591
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
Adding in stacking limits everywhere would require some code changes to support larger limits on non-island hexes, but it would also require a complete rework of the map adding stacking limits for every ground hex. Then the AI code would probably have to be reworked to prevent it from doing over-stacking. If you don't do that to the AI, you will eventually get to a point where you can't bring in enough troops to defeat an AI telephone pole stack. The people to do the work aren't available at this point.

The land combat model was originally built for Uncommon Valor which never had combat on any major land mass. It was adequate for that game. Land warfare still is reasonably accurate for island warfare situations.

With the original WitP The CBI was added, initially to give the Japanese a way to train pilots flying bombing missions against hapless Chinese. However China grew into its own thing and the flaws in the land combat model scalability came up. Anyplace where you have clashes of large numbers of units possible, the game is probably not going to be able to model it properly.

One of the ideas for AE was to completely rewrite the land combat part of the engine. However, that was a massive task. We actually did spend many weeks working to get land combat results within expected ranges. We found through our testing that the results were going to be wacky on one end of the spectrum or the other no matter what we did. We opted to let the large scale combats get weird. Rewriting the whole thing, while attractive, was just too big a task with everything else we had going on.

I so badly wanted to rip out the whole engine and rewrite it, but that would have required months of work just on the engine, and then probably months more of work on the AI. It was also highly likely that it would have also required data changes to the map and the OOBs. Both of those teams were maxed out with the tasks already on their plates without adding the whole new dimension of land combat rewrite.
historically accurate results.

I don't see it changing much at this point. Sorry.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 21
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/29/2013 12:14:21 AM   
Reg


Posts: 2162
Joined: 5/26/2000
From: Victoria, Australia
Status: offline

Oh, we understand the realities Don. But one can dream......



_____________________________

Cheers,
Reg.

(One day I will learn to spell - or check before posting....)
Uh oh, Firefox has introduced a spell checker!! What excuse can I use now!!!

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 22
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/29/2013 7:32:04 PM   
Symon


Posts: 1098
Joined: 11/24/2012
From: De Eye-lands, Mon
Status: offline
This is for you, mostly, Reg, so you can refine your model, but it should be helpful to other players, as well. The model works if one stays within rational limits. The game allows for bizarre, rack-jack-smack-yo-stack things, but complaining about ahistorical results when doing ahistorical things is a bit churlish, yeah?

Been done before, but might be worth repeating for Alfred to pick up on and put in his bag of tricks. Unit posture is there for a reason. It’s in the manual. One doesn’t use it, one gets whacked in many nefarious ways. One plays with unit posture, the algorithm seems to work fairly well. One plays smack-a-stack and the algorithm breaks. So, for you and Alfred, here’s how it works. Realize I was on the Naval side, but did consult with AndyMac on the Land stuff, and do have access to the code, and have tweaked Babes to conform to the math expressed, therein. So:

1) don’t drag-and-drop. Battles are things that happen over days and even weeks, so expecting a “result” in a turn, is a bit much. Battles need to be planned just as meticulously as your KB ambush. One must use the postures and unit IDs as they were intended.

2) only use units with rational AV values to attack/assault. The algorithm will whack the whole stack attack on counterattack, so why expose non-AV units?

3) whoops, have a water leak at the utility box. Have to get righteous with Fairhope Public Utilities.. Be back soon.

JWE


_____________________________

Yippy Ki Yay

(in reply to Reg)
Post #: 23
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/29/2013 11:19:59 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8043
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
Tangential to the topic, but it is my impression, from its almost utter absence in any AAR discussions, that few players ever use the Reserve mode for LCUs. I don't know why this is. Maybe the part about the unit having to pass checks. But the Pursuit feature is very useful in some cases, and Reserve mode can shelter the unit from damage.

Right now it's the mode with a shopping bag on its head. I imagine it took some doing to graft onto the engine. It can help quite a bit in the right circumstances.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Symon)
Post #: 24
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/30/2013 1:45:49 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 3043
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
few players ever use the Reserve mode for LCUs.


I use reserve mode all the time. Especially for armor units who take far too much damage from bombardments otherwise.

As to the original topic, anyone who thinks any game can create rational results for a single hex battle that contains multiple armies worth of troops per side and tries to simulate victory or defeat in one day is never going to see a satisfactory result. It simply isn't rational to think one day battles that resolve anything larger than perhaps a regimental sized fight in a single day in the pacific is realistic. Divisional scale fights resolved in a single day might make sense in some instances in China, but for the most part even most divisional sized engagements in China took longer than a single day to resolve.

The main problem with WitP has always been the choice of map scale given the overall level of detail in the game. It was a choice of convenience I'm sure to go with such large hex sizes (it's hard to create maps , a lot harder if the scale is smaller), but for a game that models individual ships and planes, the map scale should have been far smaller than it is. Even 10 miles per hex would have probably been too big, 1 or 2 would probably have been the correct scale to use.

Then fixed hex stacking limits could have been applied and one day battles would make a lot more sense. What we have now is a highly tactical naval and air game mated with an extremely abstract land game. It'll never make sense to someone who tries to rationalize the land results, because they simply don't fit the scale of the rest of the game.

Jim


_____________________________



(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 25
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/30/2013 3:19:57 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8043
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
few players ever use the Reserve mode for LCUs.


I use reserve mode all the time. Especially for armor units who take far too much damage from bombardments otherwise.

As to the original topic, anyone who thinks any game can create rational results for a single hex battle that contains multiple armies worth of troops per side and tries to simulate victory or defeat in one day is never going to see a satisfactory result. It simply isn't rational to think one day battles that resolve anything larger than perhaps a regimental sized fight in a single day in the pacific is realistic. Divisional scale fights resolved in a single day might make sense in some instances in China, but for the most part even most divisional sized engagements in China took longer than a single day to resolve.

The main problem with WitP has always been the choice of map scale given the overall level of detail in the game. It was a choice of convenience I'm sure to go with such large hex sizes (it's hard to create maps , a lot harder if the scale is smaller), but for a game that models individual ships and planes, the map scale should have been far smaller than it is. Even 10 miles per hex would have probably been too big, 1 or 2 would probably have been the correct scale to use.

Then fixed hex stacking limits could have been applied and one day battles would make a lot more sense. What we have now is a highly tactical naval and air game mated with an extremely abstract land game. It'll never make sense to someone who tries to rationalize the land results, because they simply don't fit the scale of the rest of the game.

Jim



You were making this same argument four years ago. Why are you still playing the game if it's so bad?

Why am I even bothering?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 26
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/30/2013 8:53:03 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 4166
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Adding in stacking limits everywhere would require some code changes to support larger limits on non-island hexes, but it would also require a complete rework of the map adding stacking limits for every ground hex. Then the AI code would probably have to be reworked to prevent it from doing over-stacking. If you don't do that to the AI, you will eventually get to a point where you can't bring in enough troops to defeat an AI telephone pole stack. The people to do the work aren't available at this point.

The land combat model was originally built for Uncommon Valor which never had combat on any major land mass. It was adequate for that game. Land warfare still is reasonably accurate for island warfare situations.

With the original WitP The CBI was added, initially to give the Japanese a way to train pilots flying bombing missions against hapless Chinese. However China grew into its own thing and the flaws in the land combat model scalability came up. Anyplace where you have clashes of large numbers of units possible, the game is probably not going to be able to model it properly.

One of the ideas for AE was to completely rewrite the land combat part of the engine. However, that was a massive task. We actually did spend many weeks working to get land combat results within expected ranges. We found through our testing that the results were going to be wacky on one end of the spectrum or the other no matter what we did. We opted to let the large scale combats get weird. Rewriting the whole thing, while attractive, was just too big a task with everything else we had going on.

I so badly wanted to rip out the whole engine and rewrite it, but that would have required months of work just on the engine, and then probably months more of work on the AI. It was also highly likely that it would have also required data changes to the map and the OOBs. Both of those teams were maxed out with the tasks already on their plates without adding the whole new dimension of land combat rewrite.
historically accurate results.

I don't see it changing much at this point. Sorry.

Bill


Great post! The quirks of this game is much easier to live with when you are provided with background data like this!

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 27
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/30/2013 2:50:51 PM   
Cpt Sherwood

 

Posts: 837
Joined: 12/1/2005
From: A Very Nice Place in the USA
Status: offline
I think I need to investigate the uses of reserve more closely. I haven't been using that mode much, maybe I should be.

_____________________________

“Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.” ― Lucius Annaeus Seneca

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 28
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/30/2013 6:06:19 PM   
linrom

 

Posts: 69
Joined: 2/20/2002
Status: offline
Why not release the code to public domain? WitpAE could become a real work-in project. Gary Grigsby made a huge mistake when he partnered with Matrix to develop his original PacWar. It became obvious to me in 2001 that the designing moves that Matrix was taking such as increasing hex size would make it a very badly designed game--the original PacWar had hex size of 30miles.



< Message edited by linrom -- 3/30/2013 6:08:01 PM >

(in reply to Cpt Sherwood)
Post #: 29
RE: Attack casualties, a little extreme - 3/30/2013 6:45:24 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8043
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cpt Sherwood

I think I need to investigate the uses of reserve more closely. I haven't been using that mode much, maybe I should be.


Thanks for not letting one poster derail the point I was making. Reserve mode is a key change made in the AE re-do to WITP; it works.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Cpt Sherwood)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Attack casualties, a little extreme Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
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

0.158