Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

House rules for impregnable Allied armour

 
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 >> House rules for impregnable Allied armour Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/20/2014 6:24:46 PM   
AE Veteran

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 6/10/2013
Status: offline
Ok this happened at Cam Rah Bay-


Ground combat at Cam Ranh Bay (64,72)

Allied Deliberate attack

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

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

Allied adjusted assault: 9

Japanese adjusted defense: 517

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

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

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

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

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



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

< Message edited by AE Veteran -- 5/20/2014 7:41:40 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/20/2014 6:25:45 PM   
AE Veteran

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 6/10/2013
Status: offline
Yeah forgot pole bombs, well they had them in Steel Panthers

(in reply to AE Veteran)
Post #: 2
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/20/2014 6:36:26 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
The 11th Shipping Regiment must not have thrown their cargo hooks. Those things can put somebody's eye out.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to AE Veteran)
Post #: 3
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/20/2014 6:47:11 PM   
AE Veteran

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 6/10/2013
Status: offline
http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/wwIIspec/number34.pdf

Lots of nasty anti tanks stuff not modelled at all in the game - why am I bothering?

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 4
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/20/2014 6:56:02 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
I assume you're bothering because you're interesting in the topic.

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's summer of 1944. Take your lumps. You had your fun in 1942.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 5/20/2014 7:56:52 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to AE Veteran)
Post #: 5
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/20/2014 7:06:50 PM   
AE Veteran

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 6/10/2013
Status: offline
Yes sorry I meant bothering continuing the game

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 6
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/20/2014 7:12:58 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4354
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Just attack them with level bombers flying low. Respond to the ahistorical with the ahistorical.

(in reply to AE Veteran)
Post #: 7
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/20/2014 7:14:34 PM   
AE Veteran

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 6/10/2013
Status: offline
It was about the third attack in a row without a tank loss. I'm sure all the algorithms add up but my point is no close up and nasty Jap AT weapons are factored in at all. My opponent has learned the combat algorithm all too well and has a number of unstoppable, loss free attacks going. It just isn't realistic!!!

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 8
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/20/2014 7:47:18 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 3258
Joined: 6/3/2006
From: Covington LA via Montreal!
Status: offline
I'm not sure what version of the game you are playing.... isn't that important in relation to any answers or did I miss something. Moose in your response, what version are you basing your response on, or is it generic? Hal

_____________________________


(in reply to AE Veteran)
Post #: 9
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/20/2014 7:48:25 PM   
AE Veteran

 

Posts: 23
Joined: 6/10/2013
Status: offline
Latest patch

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

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


(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 10
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/20/2014 8:37:32 PM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2877
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline
Fine to discuss this ofcourse but you should correct the title. It's not just allied armour. If you role in a couple of regiments of tanks into China, against troops with almost no AT weapons the results are the same..

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivor

(in reply to AE Veteran)
Post #: 11
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/20/2014 8:40:02 PM   
Gaspote


Posts: 303
Joined: 6/30/2013
From: France
Status: offline
I think the only thing to consider is :
quote:


Allied adjusted assault: 9
Japanese adjusted defense: 517
Allied assault odds: 1 to 57 (fort level 2)


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

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


< Message edited by Gaspote -- 5/20/2014 9:40:47 PM >

(in reply to AE Veteran)
Post #: 12
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/20/2014 8:58:22 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AE Veteran

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


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

As I said before, you haven't provided nearly enough information to make the claims you're making.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to AE Veteran)
Post #: 13
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/20/2014 9:05:42 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

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


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

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

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

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

And the very LAST thing that needs to be done here is talk about house rules.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 5/20/2014 10:07:15 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 14
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/20/2014 9:35:01 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7573
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gaspote

I think the only thing to consider is :
quote:


Allied adjusted assault: 9
Japanese adjusted defense: 517
Allied assault odds: 1 to 57 (fort level 2)


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

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



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

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

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

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

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



_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Gaspote)
Post #: 15
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/20/2014 9:40:49 PM   
RogerJNeilson


Posts: 1277
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline
I'm the 'opponent' and am keeping fairly quiet about this as we have a 'slight' disagreement.

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

Attack 1 - 2 July 1944

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

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

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

Attack 2 - 3 Jul 1944

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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








_____________________________

An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, Roger Neilson 3 previous posts 898+1515 + 1126 = 3539.....Finally completed my game which started the day WITP:AE was released

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 16
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/20/2014 10:03:13 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 9232
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
Run the units out of supply and they'll crumple on the assault. Here's my IJA armored unit attacking Chinese infantry early in my war at Urumchi:

quote:

Ground combat at Urumchi (79,11)

Japanese Deliberate attack

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

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

Japanese adjusted assault: 42

Allied adjusted defense: 179

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

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

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

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

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

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


Note that there were no AT guns as there were no guns in the defending force. My losses were extremely light prior to this assault. I lost a bunch of disabled (and some destroyed) vehicles simply because I attacked when my units were at ~50% or less supply from being bombed all day every day.

(in reply to RogerJNeilson)
Post #: 17
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/20/2014 10:18:29 PM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4010
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline

quote:

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


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

Jim


_____________________________


(in reply to RogerJNeilson)
Post #: 18
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/20/2014 11:39:59 PM   
DaveConn

 

Posts: 254
Joined: 5/3/2001
From: Bainbridge Island, Washington
Status: offline
It is probably important to note that if this is an issue (and I don't think it probably is), it isn't limited to allied armor. I have seen similar results early in the my games with IJA tank units against the Dutch: attacks at low odds, inflicting casualties on defenders but none on the attacking armor. Seemed reasonable to me.

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 19
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/21/2014 1:33:20 AM   
BattleMoose

 

Posts: 231
Joined: 2/17/2014
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

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


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

Jim



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

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

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 20
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/21/2014 2:18:20 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline
Well, the point is that even though there are not enough tank casualties, the tanks did not win and at that rate would never move the Japanese defender out of the hex unless supported.

Yes you would expect the occasional Sherman to throw a track or run over a mine but this is the way it is and the Allies have it just as bad in 1942 with even the most craptacular Japanese tankettes running roughshod over virtually any Allied unit.

You as the Japanese player are going to suffer at the hands of Allied tanks and are going to need to be creative in stopping them. Good terrain, high quality troops mixed with AT units and light tanks will help. But basically in all but the best conditions and considering the scope of Allied air power and the virtually lack of any inherent AT values, Japanese infantry is going to melt away in the face of strong Allied tank units. Just be thankful that he does not have complete armored divisions.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to BattleMoose)
Post #: 21
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/21/2014 5:29:18 AM   
RogerJNeilson


Posts: 1277
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline


[/quote]

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

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

The only knowledge I have about the game mechanics is the same as anyone else, there comes a point where the devs did not want us to know - and I'm the same as anyone else on that. I have no 'special knowledge'.

I know that any attack cannot be predicted in terms of the AV and adjusted AV and the odds.... but that having more and better troops and a better situation will ON AVERAGE lead to a good result. I also know that making sure your enemy is tired, demoralised, disorganised, out of supply, subject to constant air attack is likely to make them more brittle and less dangerous.

Its pretty much impossible to predict the end odds in any combat. Playing AE is an art not a science.

In the fighting at Cam Ranh Bay I cannot ever see the forces I have there taking it - well maybe in a month or so I could eliminate every defender using the Shermans and lack of supply.

BUT its July 1944 and the Allies are not gifted with a luxurious amount of time...

Given I'm not going to take the place (did I even say I needed it?) I am a little perplexed at the perceived issue here.

Its only worth - in net terms 30 VPs, ok its got a decent port but so has Saigon and I have that already. It has a Lvl 4 airfield - pretty irrelevant as I dominate the airspace over Vietnam. Its got a rag bag of enemy units there, with more assorted remnants on the way so its a last foothold in the area, but its effectively just a self running POW camp.

The issue, as I understand it, is that my long term opponent thinks there should be some armor casualties in these engagements - he may be right, but that's the issue for discussion. I have an alternative viewpoint that says a deliberate attack - as opposed to a shock attack - is a slow and methodical application of force multipliers. If I were to go for a shock attack I'd expect a lot of close quarters activity that would end up with lots of my armour needing repair or replacement.

Where there are big and important battles I'm employing far greater leverage in terms of AV and smashing the defences as I need to.

I understand my opponent's frustration - I have had two years of it being dished out to me - but I don't see how another house rule could be applied that made actual historical sense.

My troops are well supplied and rather than rushing in and getting nasty things done to them they are standing off and 'keeping the Jap's heads down'.

Looking from other periods, think Hastings, think Agincourt, think of any combat where one side has the superiority of range and supply....

If someone can come up with a workable house rule that makes sense I'm happy to add it to the long list of other ones I have added in during this game....

Roger

_____________________________

An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, Roger Neilson 3 previous posts 898+1515 + 1126 = 3539.....Finally completed my game which started the day WITP:AE was released

(in reply to BattleMoose)
Post #: 22
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/21/2014 5:32:15 AM   
RogerJNeilson


Posts: 1277
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns


quote:

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


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

Jim



Feel free to comment Jim, but I might not comment on what you say.....

Roger

_____________________________

An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, Roger Neilson 3 previous posts 898+1515 + 1126 = 3539.....Finally completed my game which started the day WITP:AE was released

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 23
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/21/2014 5:36:07 AM   
RogerJNeilson


Posts: 1277
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well, the point is that even though there are not enough tank casualties, the tanks did not win and at that rate would never move the Japanese defender out of the hex unless supported.

Yes you would expect the occasional Sherman to throw a track or run over a mine but this is the way it is and the Allies have it just as bad in 1942 with even the most craptacular Japanese tankettes running roughshod over virtually any Allied unit.

You as the Japanese player are going to suffer at the hands of Allied tanks and are going to need to be creative in stopping them. Good terrain, high quality troops mixed with AT units and light tanks will help. But basically in all but the best conditions and considering the scope of Allied air power and the virtually lack of any inherent AT values, Japanese infantry is going to melt away in the face of strong Allied tank units. Just be thankful that he does not have complete armored divisions.


Indeed, and if the Allies hit spots where you haven't got the right troops, or the right defences, or the right terrain then you are in trouble..... this is Churchill's 'soft underbelly' reality... he may have got it wrong in Italy and in the Dardanelles, but this time he got it right.

Roger


_____________________________

An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, Roger Neilson 3 previous posts 898+1515 + 1126 = 3539.....Finally completed my game which started the day WITP:AE was released

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 24
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/21/2014 6:10:34 AM   
RogerJNeilson


Posts: 1277
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AE Veteran

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/wwIIspec/number34.pdf

Lots of nasty anti tanks stuff not modelled at all in the game - why am I bothering?


Now that is a fascinating read, and I take from it that there should be some losses, and that unsupported tanks should not expect to take a position without significant losses. I also take from it a sense that the Japanese were in a right mess over how to deal with Allied armour, and that much of their thinking was improvisation where they could.

Accepting the game mechanics may not be quite right I cannot see a 'house rule' that could be used, as I have already indicated in emails, its not possible to say attacks can only be conducted with a certain level of odds - as the odds are only known after the event.

So short of the Allies not attacking with tanks I'm at a loss what could be done here.

Cam Ranh is a sideshow anyway in my opinion. Its not likely to be repeated much, if at all.

On the other hand large mobile forces will be knocking on lots of doors in the next month or so, suitable support in place and ready to eliminate positions where there is not the supply, fortification or will to resist.

I don't think this is a major - or even a minor issue. As has been recently demonstrated the Allied forces once ashore can dominate the battlefield in 1944.

Roger

_____________________________

An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, Roger Neilson 3 previous posts 898+1515 + 1126 = 3539.....Finally completed my game which started the day WITP:AE was released

(in reply to AE Veteran)
Post #: 25
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/21/2014 6:25:30 AM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8262
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
This doesn´t need to be HRed. Just read crsuttons post and follow his excellent suggestions. Even massed Allied tank attacks can be thwarted if you do it correctly.

(in reply to RogerJNeilson)
Post #: 26
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/21/2014 7:51:44 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6606
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3





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

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



The only knowledge I have about the game mechanics is the same as anyone else, there comes a point where the devs did not want us to know - and I'm the same as anyone else on that. I have no 'special knowledge'.

I know that any attack cannot be predicted in terms of the AV and adjusted AV and the odds.... but that having more and better troops and a better situation will ON AVERAGE lead to a good result. I also know that making sure your enemy is tired, demoralised, disorganised, out of supply, subject to constant air attack is likely to make them more brittle and less dangerous.

Its pretty much impossible to predict the end odds in any combat. Playing AE is an art not a science.

In the fighting at Cam Ranh Bay I cannot ever see the forces I have there taking it - well maybe in a month or so I could eliminate every defender using the Shermans and lack of supply.

BUT its July 1944 and the Allies are not gifted with a luxurious amount of time...

Given I'm not going to take the place (did I even say I needed it?) I am a little perplexed at the perceived issue here.

Its only worth - in net terms 30 VPs, ok its got a decent port but so has Saigon and I have that already. It has a Lvl 4 airfield - pretty irrelevant as I dominate the airspace over Vietnam. Its got a rag bag of enemy units there, with more assorted remnants on the way so its a last foothold in the area, but its effectively just a self running POW camp.

The issue, as I understand it, is that my long term opponent thinks there should be some armor casualties in these engagements - he may be right, but that's the issue for discussion. I have an alternative viewpoint that says a deliberate attack - as opposed to a shock attack - is a slow and methodical application of force multipliers. If I were to go for a shock attack I'd expect a lot of close quarters activity that would end up with lots of my armour needing repair or replacement.

Where there are big and important battles I'm employing far greater leverage in terms of AV and smashing the defences as I need to.

I understand my opponent's frustration - I have had two years of it being dished out to me - but I don't see how another house rule could be applied that made actual historical sense.

My troops are well supplied and rather than rushing in and getting nasty things done to them they are standing off and 'keeping the Jap's heads down'.

Looking from other periods, think Hastings, think Agincourt, think of any combat where one side has the superiority of range and supply....

If someone can come up with a workable house rule that makes sense I'm happy to add it to the long list of other ones I have added in during this game....

Roger[/I]



Roger,

I've quoted only this post because it covers the ground of several other posts.

Stick to your guns. There is absolutely no ground for a House Rule nor is the game deficient nor have you done anything questionable.

1. One wonders why it has taken your opponent 2 and a half game years to discover the power of tanks. Was it only a sin of omission that he never noticed it and volunteered to keep it in check when it favoured the Japanese?

2. AE is not a tactical, squad level game. By necessity it involves abstraction. Why just increase micromanagement in this area which would just so happen to greatly assist the Japanese side now, and not elsewhere. Where would the intellectual honesty lie? Let's avoid all abstraction and let's see if anyone could get to January 1942 in less than 10 years of real time play, at 40 hours per week.

3. Bringing elements of other games into the debate is an irrelevancy. He should play those games instead of AE if they are so much more perfect and accurate.

4. Those tactical elements he claims to be missing in AE have already been factored in to the anit-soft/hard ratings of the individual devices. All this data is readily available in game and strong players base their strategy and tactics on the game data, not on some fantasy assumptions brought in from some external hearsay position.

5. The Allied player is doing absolutely nothing which is gamey. There is no exploitation of the game engine. It is merely the proper application of standard real world military principles to the game situation.

6. No workable HR could ever be devised for this situation nor would it ever be desirable. Rather than seeking one, and in the process giving the strong impression that the Japanese player is crying to mummy, the Japanese player should just employ the sound military tactics, which are available in the game, to counter the Allied tactics. That is what a strong Japanese player would do.


As crsutton has pointed out, the Japanese are easily holding this position. They are suffering very few casualties. Contrary to the thread title, Allied armour is not impregnable. Casualties can be inflicted upon Allied armour. It just requires a player who knows how to play the game, taking advantage of combined arms capabilities.

Alfred

< Message edited by Alfred -- 5/21/2014 8:53:48 AM >

(in reply to RogerJNeilson)
Post #: 27
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/21/2014 8:07:09 AM   
obvert


Posts: 14050
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
+1

Well said.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 28
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/21/2014 9:14:41 AM   
Jim D Burns


Posts: 4010
Joined: 2/25/2002
From: Salida, CA.
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
Feel free to comment Jim, but I might not comment on what you say.....


Thanks Roger,

First thing that popped into my mind when reading this thread was the possible use of reserve (no pursuit) as a setting for the tanks. This would keep them back from damaging artillery fire early in the combat resolution, but if the units are very well lead with great leaders they’d more than likely still enter the battle at some point and do their damage taking little or no damage themselves in return due to the fact they enter the fight late during the combat resolution.

I’ve never tried a deliberate attack with everyone set to reserve status before so I’m not 100% sure that’s what’s going on here, but I use reserve status liberally with all my armor and see good results with it and take far fewer casualties with them than I used to take when I had them set to defend.

The danger of course is that if everyone is set to reserve, no one has defend orders and they would lose a fight if attacked by default. But if they are all in reserve and attack I’m thinking perhaps the fight isn’t auto-lost as long as someone makes their reserve check die roll. But I could be wrong.

Jim

Edit Oops never mind, just went in and checked the game, the reserve status is not where I thought it was (thought it was in the same area defend/move/etc is), so it isn’t even possible to attack if everyone is in reserve mode. Someone needs to initiate the deliberate attack. That’s what happens when you are away from the game for any length, you forget tons of little details and confusion reigns.


< Message edited by Jim D Burns -- 5/21/2014 10:23:09 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to RogerJNeilson)
Post #: 29
RE: House rules for impregnable Allied armour - 5/21/2014 9:26:18 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6606
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Units in reserve do not participate in contact.  A unit in reserve on the attacking side gains the benefit of hot pursuit if the defender is forced to retreat.

If the unit is in reserve on the defending side, it neither suffers casualties from enemy bombardment (with one caveat) nor does it contribute to the attack.  The caveat is that on the defensive, if the attacker is on the verge of getting a 2:1 odds result, there is a die roll to see if the unit in reserve is activated and then it participates as normal on the defence.

Alfred

(in reply to Jim D Burns)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> House rules for impregnable Allied armour Page: [1] 2 3   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

0.414