Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

USMC paras ratings

 
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 >> USMC paras ratings Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
USMC paras ratings - 1/1/2021 2:32:28 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4452
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Why is the starting USMC Para squad rated 55 anti-armor/ 30 anti-soft? 55 rating is more than 37mm AT gun which has 53 anti-armor rating. I reckon early-war USMC infantry used 20mm Solothurn AT auto-cannons, but were those issued to the paras as well? Those USMC para squads look really overprowered for 1941.

< Message edited by Yaab -- 1/1/2021 2:39:05 PM >
Post #: 1
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/1/2021 5:34:24 PM   
Leandros


Posts: 1715
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline
Here's an interesting table:

https://www.battleorder.org/usmc-rifle-co-1941

As can be seen both bazookas and .60 calibre AT rifles are mentioned, but also that they were not issued.

Para squads might have had those issued.

20 mm weapons are not mentioned on this level.

Here bazookas are mentioned: https://www.battleorder.org/us-paramarines-1942

Fred

< Message edited by Leandros -- 1/1/2021 5:41:38 PM >


_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D34QCWQ/?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&ref=series_rw_dp_labf

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 2
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/2/2021 5:44:23 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4452
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Thanks.

The device in question is US Para Squad 42 (device id 1106). It seems USMC and US Army use the same device for their parachute units in the game. Guess the device uses a US Army para TOE, hence its lavish anti-armor rating.

(in reply to Leandros)
Post #: 3
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/2/2021 8:13:34 AM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline
I always understood those values as representing more specific training than equipment proper.

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 4
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/2/2021 5:05:29 PM   
Leandros


Posts: 1715
Joined: 3/5/2015
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

I always understood those values as representing more specific training than equipment proper.


I should think that is reasonable. Particularly as they in RL (if my above TOE link is correct) could have had Bazookas. Not the most effective AT weapon in the world but neither were the Japanese tanks.

Regds

Fred


_____________________________

River Wide, Ocean Deep - a book on Operation Sea Lion - www.fredleander.com
Saving MacArthur - a book series on how The Philippines were saved - in 1942! https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B07D34QCWQ/?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&ref=series_rw_dp_labf

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 5
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/2/2021 5:33:32 PM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 17634
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Leandros


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

I always understood those values as representing more specific training than equipment proper.


I should think that is reasonable. Particularly as they in RL (if my above TOE link is correct) could have had Bazookas. Not the most effective AT weapon in the world but neither were the Japanese tanks.

Regds

Fred


I have always thought of it this way: The USArmy units prior to 1943 had a few anti-tank guns, and that was the extent of their anti-hard protection. Infantry squads did not have bazookas at the time. But the Para Units, both USMC and USArmy could not paradrop A/T guns so they got the first bazookas, at least one per squad. That adds up to a lot more devices firing and thus a higher anti-hard rating.

During combat, the results would be adjusted for the difference in accuracy and penetration offered by the bazooka vs an A/T gun (like the difference between raw AV and adjusted AV for infantry squads).

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to Leandros)
Post #: 6
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/3/2021 9:28:31 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4452
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
A thought occured to me.

If you check all devices in Tracker, you will see that apart from AFVs (tanks, SP guns, armored car etc), they only devices which have armor rating are CD guns and Garrison devices. Thus, this high anti-armor rating for paratrooper devices makes sense. Drop the three USMC para batalions on some Jap fortress in Gilberts or Marshalls and the USMC paras should destroy it!

(in reply to BBfanboy)
Post #: 7
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/3/2021 2:26:05 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4452
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
The plot thickens.

In Tracker, Allies have only one squad device that references an anti-tank weapon. The device is Bren Section (PIAT) (id 1010), anti-armor 75/anti-soft 33. Thus, we can deduce that Commonwealth squads anti-armor rating of 75 is from PIAT guns or its equivalent. However, those Bren(PIAT) devices form a distinct part of late British inf div TOEs. For example, Brit Coronet 45 Division TOE (id 28989) lists 75 BREN (PIAT) squads in its TOE.

You can see that all Commnonewalth squads experience a HUGE jumps to anti-armor 75 rating starting January 1943. That would mean that each squad (10-12 men) has one PIAT spigot mortar in them.

HOWEVER, here it says, that Brits issued three PIATs per company
https://www.battleorder.org/uk-rifle-co-1944

Thus, three PIAT per 120 men, so ten squads of 12 men each would have to do with just three PIATS between them.

In game, looking at their anti-armor rating, each Commonwealth squad enjoys one PIAT! Thus, starting from January 1943, Japs may face, instead of 45-75 Bren (PIAT) sections in one Commonwealth division, almost 400 Bren (PIAT) sections - 75 proper PIATs and 320-350 infantry squads with PIAT-like ratings.

Late USMC, Soviet and USA rifle squads max out at 55-45-35 anti-armor rating, which seems more realistic.


EDIT: I checked how the RHS mod addressed this issue. There, infantry squads have very low anti-armor ratings, while all anti-tank infantry weapons are lumped into sepearate devices like Boys anti-tank rifle squads, numbering around 50 per division. Seem legit, but I have no knowledge how this arrengement works in combat in RHS.

< Message edited by Yaab -- 1/3/2021 2:36:16 PM >

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 8
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/3/2021 8:48:33 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13168
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
How about the squads carrying things like satchel charges since they would not have the engineers nor other heavy support units when they drop? Even just blocks of composition 4 can be fun to play with.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 9
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/3/2021 8:59:53 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline
You have a very peculiar way of having fun...

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 10
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/3/2021 9:10:00 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4452
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

How about the squads carrying things like satchel charges since they would not have the engineers nor other heavy support units when they drop? Even just blocks of composition 4 can be fun to play with.


That is what combat engineer squads are for in divisional TOEs.

Right now, every Commonwealth infantry division starting January 1943 is a kind of a combat engineer division. Since anti-armor rating of devices is taken into account in reducing forts, then what is the point of Japs even trying to build forts in Burma?

< Message edited by Yaab -- 1/3/2021 9:12:10 PM >

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 11
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/3/2021 9:17:10 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13168
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

How about the squads carrying things like satchel charges since they would not have the engineers nor other heavy support units when they drop? Even just blocks of composition 4 can be fun to play with.


That is what combat engineer squads are for in divisional TOEs.

Right now, every Commonwealth infantry division starting January 1943 is a kind of a combat engineer division. Since anti-armor rating of devices is taken into account in reducing forts, then what is the point of Japs even trying to build forts in Burma?


Ever see Band of Brothers? The paratroopers who were not combat engineers had explosives to play with.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 12
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/3/2021 9:21:55 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13168
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

You have a very peculiar way of having fun...


Oh yes! Life can be a blast, literally!

The best way to get fish (whether or not they are biting) is to use a DuPont spinner, locally also known as a Finnish firecracker.


More properly known as a quarter stick of dynamite.


One nice, elderly gentleman told me that they used to use hand grenades for fishing. They would get enough fish to feed the entire company.


_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 13
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/3/2021 9:25:17 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4452
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
I am talking infantry squads - AIF, Indian, British, African etc. Even late-war Dutch inf sections have ratings like combat engineers. Anti-armor rating is used both in firing phase, and later in assault for reducing fort levels. Seriously, a late-war Commonwealth infantry division is more scary than Marine divisions.

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 14
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/3/2021 9:31:55 PM   
RangerJoe


Posts: 13168
Joined: 11/16/2015
From: My Mother, although my Father had some small part.
Status: offline
Then maybe someone needs to edit the Commonwealth divisions to reflect more the actual number of PIAT devices if that is what the anti-armour rating is reflecting.

_____________________________

Seek peace but keep your gun handy.

I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing!

“Illegitemus non carborundum est (“Don’t let the bastards grind you down”).”
― Julia Child


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 15
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/4/2021 4:23:57 AM   
rustysi


Posts: 7474
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
quote:

PIAT


PIAT was at best a poor weapon.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 16
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/4/2021 5:26:07 AM   
BBfanboy


Posts: 17634
Joined: 8/4/2010
From: Winnipeg, MB
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Then maybe someone needs to edit the Commonwealth divisions to reflect more the actual number of PIAT devices if that is what the anti-armour rating is reflecting.

Looking at my Australian division, they have the Piat Squads and also lots of 2-pounders; 72 IIRC.
I don't recall any Canadian units referencing the Piat in their battle reports, so I think the bazooka was an upgrade that they used instead. Maybe they also had sticky bombs, made with maple syrup of course.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

No matter how bad a situation is, you can always make it worse. - Chris Hadfield : An Astronaut's Guide To Life On Earth

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 17
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/4/2021 6:56:47 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Then maybe someone needs to edit the Commonwealth divisions to reflect more the actual number of PIAT devices if that is what the anti-armour rating is reflecting.


That would be a serious mistake if anyone went down this path.

Alfred

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 18
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/4/2021 7:03:26 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4452
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
The only mistake is in the Editor. This is the Wirraway bomb load all over again.

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 19
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/4/2021 7:08:14 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

How about the squads carrying things like satchel charges since they would not have the engineers nor other heavy support units when they drop? Even just blocks of composition 4 can be fun to play with.


This is the only post in this thread which comes anywhere close to the type of factors taken into account by the devs.

This thread is another one of those pointless exercises in trying to reverse engineer the code and place the values into a spreadsheet. Any data value inputted into a single cell of a spreadsheet has zero meaning if it is not read in conjunction with how the algorithms manipulate that data value.

Alfred

(in reply to RangerJoe)
Post #: 20
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/4/2021 8:53:42 AM   
RhinoDad


Posts: 221
Joined: 12/22/2020
Status: offline

Despite devices one also has to take into consideration training. U.S. army was given little anti-tank training outside of shooting anti-armour weaponry at it. U.S. marines as the last to receive updated equipment and often less of it were trained to do more with less and developed infantry anti-armour strategies. They relied on things like common grenades and just about anything else at their disposal to disable armour. Commonwealth troops who did not have endless supplies and equipment like the yanks also learned to fight with what they had; they often had more than U.S. marines. So basic supplied equipment to a U.S. marine and Commonwealth would function in an anti-armour roll. This specialized training would probably best not be included in game overall training stat.

In Europe the Russians, Commonwealth and latter Germans learned to make the tank a death trap unless accompanied by infantry to keep the enemy infantry at a distance. This was accomplished through items commonly carried by infantry, much more so than anti-armour weaponry per say.

Then again raw unit data equipment ratings most likely get manipulated quite a bit in ways we do not know in combat resolution. Looking at a specific number in unit stats may end up being misleading depending on how the code manipulates and crunches it. What is important is that all the numbers taken in whole when passed through the combat algorithms result in a somewhat realistic result.

Am by far one of the least knowledgeable in game mechanics but the game does seem to do a good job, especially for a pc computer program, reflecting a very complex integration of greatly varied men and equipment.

Try using a commonwealth unit to storm an island atoll and see if they do a better job than a comparable marine unit. I would guess game mechanics would end up with the marine unit doing better.


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 21
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/4/2021 9:33:46 AM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

Since anti-armor rating of devices is taken into account in reducing forts, then what is the point of Japs even trying to build forts in Burma?

Where did you get that from ? 8.4.2’s third paragraph assigns to the fortification levels an effect on the defending unit’s fire and on its difficulty to be hit, but there is no mention of a change to its armored or non-armored status.

And, Section 8.4.2.2 of the manual only refers to the final odds of the attack, while the previous section (middle of p.196) makes the distinction that
- success against soft targets is determined by the weapon’s anti-soft value
- success against armored targets is determined by comparing the weapon’s penetration and the target’s armor values
As such, anti-armor value of the weapon is not specified there.


Besides, if you look at the Bren Section (PIAT) (or any other squad), you can see that there’s no value for the Penetration or Range values, nor Accuracy or Effect, contrary to, say, any AT gun (or artillery, AA, AFV, etc). So my guess is that there’s more to the code than simply the values, as hinted by Alfred. You can’t compare apples to oranges, so compare squads with each other, not with AT guns. And this shows that initial squads are less efficient against armor, and that some of the commonwealth’s squads end up slightly better suited than US squads, all other things being equal (meaning, without differences in experience, preparation, terrain, leadership, etc).

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 22
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/4/2021 9:49:56 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3229
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
quote:

You can see that all Commnonewalth squads experience a HUGE jumps to anti-armor 75 rating starting January 1943. That would mean that each squad (10-12 men) has one PIAT spigot mortar in them.


Every allied grunt in the Pacific/SWPAC/SEA theatres - who has a standard rifle - has a US M9 ATG, or the CW copy, and can kill a poorly armoured IJ tank/tankette.

[/end thread]

_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 23
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/4/2021 10:16:30 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4452
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

Ambassador , there are two quotes I remember, but can no longer find via forum or Google search

One by Symon saying that 1000 Chinese infantry squads (anti-armor 5/anti soft 13) shooting at Jap tanks will finally disable/destroy tanks ,even though Chinese rifle squad has anti-armor rating 5 and penetration 0.


Second quote I have saved, alas no author:

START QUOTE

" You appear to have a pretty good grasp of the land combat system here.

What is vital for reductions in fortifications is the Anti-Armor firepower of the attacker, relative to the Anti-Armor firepower of the defender.

As examples, here are the Anti-Armor values for some Japanese squads (in DBB, at least), with load (stacking) costs in parentheses:

IJA Cmbt Eng Sqd 41 - 15 (17)
IJA Cmbt Eng Sqd 43 - 25 (17)
IJA Motorized Squad - 15 (17)
IJA Para Squad - 5 (13)
IJA Inf Squad - 15 (17)
IJA Raider Squad - 5 (13)
IJA Hy Inf Sqd 41 - 15 (20)
IJA Hy Inf Squad 43 - 25 (20)
IJA Engineer Squad - 15 (17)
SNLF Squad - 5 (17)
SNLF HMG Squad - 5 (12)
SNLF Para Squad - 5 (13)
IJA HMG Section - 5 (12)

Some conclusions from this:

1) Having devices with high Anti-Armor ratings present while attacking a fortified base is vital if stacking limits are a problem.

2) Always try to have combat engineers present with high Anti-Armor firepower. As expected, Japanese SNLF-type devices and parachute squads are really crap at reducing enemy fortification levels."

END QUOTE


< Message edited by Yaab -- 1/4/2021 10:19:02 AM >

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 24
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/4/2021 10:55:13 AM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab


Ambassador , there are two quotes I remember, but can no longer find via forum or Google search

One by Symon saying that 1000 Chinese infantry squads (anti-armor 5/anti soft 13) shooting at Jap tanks will finally disable/destroy tanks ,even though Chinese rifle squad has anti-armor rating 5 and penetration 0.


It’s from there : http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2709758, and that quote basically confirms what I said about there’s being more to the code than simply the values.

By the way, if you check post #15, in the previous page, you’ll see JWE explaining that squad values include the support weapons present at platoon or company levels, and not otherwise included in the TOE of the units. And also that they carefully designed the values of all devices with complex maths, taking into account the algorithms and balancing every nationality’s squads in comparison to the artillery.

Also, post #96, again by JWE, and the following few ones, explains that AT mines, Bangalore’s, C4 satchels and the like are not modeled in the hard/soft firepower but in the AV/fort reduction algorithms.


As for the other quote, hard to figure if it’s from a dev.

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 25
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/4/2021 11:01:17 AM   
Ian R

 

Posts: 3229
Joined: 8/1/2000
From: Cammeraygal Country
Status: offline
quote:

squad values include the support weapons present at platoon or company levels, and not otherwise included in the TOE of the units.


Queue Jeff Buckley.



< Message edited by Ian R -- 1/4/2021 11:03:28 AM >


_____________________________

"You may find that having is not so nearly pleasing a thing as wanting. It is not logical, but it is often true."
- Cdr Spock


Ian R

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 26
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/4/2021 11:26:54 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4452
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab


Ambassador , there are two quotes I remember, but can no longer find via forum or Google search

One by Symon saying that 1000 Chinese infantry squads (anti-armor 5/anti soft 13) shooting at Jap tanks will finally disable/destroy tanks ,even though Chinese rifle squad has anti-armor rating 5 and penetration 0.


It’s from there : http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2709758, and that quote basically confirms what I said about there’s being more to the code than simply the values.

By the way, if you check post #15, in the previous page, you’ll see JWE explaining that squad values include the support weapons present at platoon or company levels, and not otherwise included in the TOE of the units. And also that they carefully designed the values of all devices with complex maths, taking into account the algorithms and balancing every nationality’s squads in comparison to the artillery.

Also, post #96, again by JWE, and the following few ones, explains that AT mines, Bangalore’s, C4 satchels and the like are not modeled in the hard/soft firepower but in the AV/fort reduction algorithms.


As for the other quote, hard to figure if it’s from a dev.



Thanks, that was the quote I was searching!

My worry is two-fold.

First, those 75 anti-armor infantry section shoot en masse at Jap tanks, thus attriting Jap tank forces faster than in RL, provided Jap player assembles his tank units in Burma.

Second, if in assault phase and fort reduction by adjusted AV, the anti-armor rating of assualting devices is taken into consideration,which we don't know for sure, then the Allied Commonwealth divisions have another bonus compared to RL.

I don't mean in any way to disrespect the Commonwealth combat prowess,it just those 75 ratings from 01/1943 for infantry sections plus Bren(PIAT) (06/1943) plus Vickers (also PIAT) (08/1943) seem to me way off compared to US/USMC rifle squads in the same timeline. All Commonwealth inf sections match the anti-armor rating of Cdo/Para and Commonwealth combat engineer.

We had those Wirraway/Boomerang clerical errors in the Editor for 10 years, and I worry this may be the same situation.



(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 27
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/4/2021 1:27:18 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 1674
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab


quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab


Ambassador , there are two quotes I remember, but can no longer find via forum or Google search

One by Symon saying that 1000 Chinese infantry squads (anti-armor 5/anti soft 13) shooting at Jap tanks will finally disable/destroy tanks ,even though Chinese rifle squad has anti-armor rating 5 and penetration 0.


It’s from there : http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2709758, and that quote basically confirms what I said about there’s being more to the code than simply the values.

By the way, if you check post #15, in the previous page, you’ll see JWE explaining that squad values include the support weapons present at platoon or company levels, and not otherwise included in the TOE of the units. And also that they carefully designed the values of all devices with complex maths, taking into account the algorithms and balancing every nationality’s squads in comparison to the artillery.

Also, post #96, again by JWE, and the following few ones, explains that AT mines, Bangalore’s, C4 satchels and the like are not modeled in the hard/soft firepower but in the AV/fort reduction algorithms.


As for the other quote, hard to figure if it’s from a dev.



Thanks, that was the quote I was searching!

My worry is two-fold.

First, those 75 anti-armor infantry section shoot en masse at Jap tanks, thus attriting Jap tank forces faster than in RL, provided Jap player assembles his tank units in Burma.

Second, if in assault phase and fort reduction by adjusted AV, the anti-armor rating of assualting devices is taken into consideration,which we don't know for sure, then the Allied Commonwealth divisions have another bonus compared to RL.

I don't mean in any way to disrespect the Commonwealth combat prowess,it just those 75 ratings from 01/1943 for infantry sections plus Bren(PIAT) (06/1943) plus Vickers (also PIAT) (08/1943) seem to me way off compared to US/USMC rifle squads in the same timeline. All Commonwealth inf sections match the anti-armor rating of Cdo/Para and Commonwealth combat engineer.

We had those Wirraway/Boomerang clerical errors in the Editor for 10 years, and I worry this may be the same situation.




Regarding your first worry, we don’t know for sure how the algorithms work. The values are those numbers since release, over ten years ago, and AFAIK nobody conducted tests showing the IJA tank units were killed faster than they should. Nor have I read an AAR complaining about that attrition to be out of proportion of RL history. Historically, the type 95 and type 97 tanks were killed in droves, and only achieved success in China and in Malaya (and even there, it’s essentially the element of surprise at seeing tanks in the jungle, and the incompetence of the British leadership).
There are many accounts of IJA tanks, even the Chi-Ha, being destroyed by bazookas (disproportionately more so than Panzers), and both Ha-Go and Chi-Ha are notorious for lacking strong armor.
Also, historically I only know of two tank regiments being used in Burma...

Regarding your second worry, as long as you don’t have anything more than an unnamed quote, which contradicts the manual, I wouldn’t concern myself with it. Call that burden of proof.

And as for that « clerical error », are you mentioning the bomb load of the Wirraway being only 2x100lb ?

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 28
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/4/2021 1:29:58 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab


Ambassador , there are two quotes I remember, but can no longer find via forum or Google search

One by Symon saying that 1000 Chinese infantry squads (anti-armor 5/anti soft 13) shooting at Jap tanks will finally disable/destroy tanks ,even though Chinese rifle squad has anti-armor rating 5 and penetration 0.


It’s from there : http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/fb.asp?m=2709758, and that quote basically confirms what I said about there’s being more to the code than simply the values.

By the way, if you check post #15, in the previous page, you’ll see JWE explaining that squad values include the support weapons present at platoon or company levels, and not otherwise included in the TOE of the units. And also that they carefully designed the values of all devices with complex maths, taking into account the algorithms and balancing every nationality’s squads in comparison to the artillery.

Also, post #96, again by JWE, and the following few ones, explains that AT mines, Bangalore’s, C4 satchels and the like are not modeled in the hard/soft firepower but in the AV/fort reduction algorithms.


As for the other quote, hard to figure if it’s from a dev.


Ambassador,

That is a good thread because it has the 3 key devs on the subject (JWE/Andy Mac/Kereguelen) all making several detailed posts. However ...

A better thread which is more on point re anti-armor values is this later thread from 2013:

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3353694&mpage=1&key=armor�

JWE went very close to the edge of disclosure in his detailed comments in the thread I have provided.

Alfred

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 29
RE: USMC paras ratings - 1/4/2021 1:38:53 PM   
Yaab


Posts: 4452
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline

Well, you see in several AARs that Allies can move back into Burma ahead of historical timeline. I always thought it was due to the ease of supply flow form India to Burma, or US infantry units used there by Allied players. Now, maybe high anti-armor rating of Commonwealth units adds to an earlier collapse of Japanese resistance in Burma too...


As for the Wirraway error, see the following link from post #41. The wrong/missing Wirraway and Boomerang loadouts were corrected by AndyMac in his updated scen001 in 2019.

https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3852047&mpage=2

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> USMC paras ratings 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

0.586