Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

So I created a little tank battle...

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> So I created a little tank battle... Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
So I created a little tank battle... - 10/23/2005 5:59:15 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6588
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
I put

50x T-34/76A with 50 motorized support

vs.

50x Type 95 light tanks with 100 mortorized support (mistake in battle, I meant to put 50).


Both had 75 exp, 99 morale, 0 disruption, 0 fatigue, and 500 supplies (plenty).

The leaders were the default leaders, so there was some variation (not much tho), and I plunked them in the wrong hex (I intended clear, but got the wrong one, and it was wooded).

From the DB, the T-34/76A is a far superior tank.

Type 95
Range : 1
Accuracy : 7
Effect : 4
Amor : 30
Anti-Armor : 50
Penetration : 50
* I don't think that range, accuracy, or effect have anything to do with ground combat by the way.

T-34/76A
Range : 1
Accuracy : 8
Effect : 12
Amor : 85
Anti-Armor : 100
Penetration : 100
* I don't think that range, accuracy, or effect have anything to do with ground combat by the way.

I believe that it basically pits the anti-armor and/or penetration vs. the armor rating, just like it does with bombs vs. ships or cannons vs. planes.

Anyway, the odds were surprising. I set them both to deliberate attack.

Japan attacked first. Base 51. Adjusted 41.
Russia defended Base 48. Adjusted 29.

Japan got 1 to 1 odds.

Then Russia attacked. And got 0 to 1 odds. I couldn't write fast enough for the base and adjusted for the second attack. But I remember that Japan's defense was adjusted up considerably, which is why Russia got 0-1.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 30,32
 
Japanese Deliberate attack
 
Attacking force 2400 troops, 0 guns, 144 vehicles
 
Defending force 1710 troops, 0 guns, 90 vehicles
 
Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 
 
 
Japanese ground losses:
85 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 7
 
Allied ground losses:
28 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 1
 
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 30,32
 
Allied Deliberate attack
 
Attacking force 1656 troops, 0 guns, 87 vehicles
 
Defending force 2320 troops, 0 guns, 136 vehicles
 
Allied assault odds: 0 to 1 
 
 
Japanese ground losses:
120 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 10
 
 



Interestingly enough, the actual distruction of tanks was as follows :

Japan lost
8 Type 95 tanks disabled.
16 Type 95 tanks destroyed.

Russia lost
2 T-34s disabled
2 T-34s destroyed

The japanese unit had very little disruption/morale/fatigue loss however. And Russia had has something like 90 disruption (probably from the 0-1 attack).

Just posting the results. I"m glad to see that the Russian tanks seem to have soundly beat the much smaller Japanese. But you'd have never know from the odds portayed (and why is Russia so disrupted).

I'm tempted to set up a 76mm anti-tank gun battery in the woods, to see how they fair vs. IJA tanks. AT battery should do quite well. But we'll see.

-F-

< Message edited by Feinder -- 10/23/2005 6:04:09 AM >


_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me

Post #: 1
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/23/2005 6:11:20 AM   
Big B

 

Posts: 4870
Joined: 6/1/2005
From: Old Los Angeles pre-1960
Status: offline
Hmm, from the odds you described - I'm pleasantly surprised the tank battle went so well for the Russians.

I'm glad to see that the tank combat model seems to work well.

B

_____________________________


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 2
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/23/2005 6:14:31 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
Some questions/comments:

Where did the combat occur? Who owns the base? What about prep points? Supply?

To be fair, you should have the battle taking place in clear hex with no base. You should do it with one side attacking and the other defending, then reverse roles. Then do it again, using shock attacks.

I am suspicious of the fairness of the ground combat routine with both sides set to attack (IJ goes first).

Leaders should be as close to identical as you can manage.



< Message edited by irrelevant -- 10/23/2005 6:16:46 AM >


_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 3
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/23/2005 6:15:49 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6588
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
Well, it was only one test, and there were some elements that I didn't control correctly. But yes, I'm glad to see that the Typ 95s got clobbered.

I suppose it would be interesting to run it a 2nd turn, to see if the Russians would have gotten handled due to their high disruption. Disruption will GREATLY reduce combat effectiveness (in the WitP model).

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to Big B)
Post #: 4
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/23/2005 6:23:06 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6588
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
Where did the combat occur? Who owns the base? What about prep points? Supply?
in 30,32. A wooded (non-base) hex in burma. I was aiming for 32,32 (clear), but I entered the hex wrong. I chose a non-base, so that neither side would have any advantages.

To be fair, you should have the battle taking place in clear hex with no base.
Yes, I tried that, but I put in the wrong hex (it was non-base wooded).

You should do it with one side attacking and the other defending, then reverse roles. Then do it again, using shock attacks.
Very true (and all of your examples on fresh restarts, not in sequence. But all I'm really doing is waiting on a turn from my PBEM oppoent, so I haven't had time to run thru 4 restarts and 4 turns. :^) I might actually do that tomorrow, if I'm bored again.

I am suspicious of the fairness of the ground combat routine with both sides set to attack (IJ goes first).
Such is the model in WitP. Many have "expressed concern" about it. It could have just as easily blown up in their face tho. If Japan had gotten 0-1 for whatever reason, then russia attacked, the Russian attack would have been far more devistating I'm sure.

Leaders should be as close to identical as you can manage.
I can make them identicle. But I didn't take the time to change them. But yes, you're right.

(* clicks on "receive mail".... *)

Sigh.

Parker, quite reading this post, and run the turn.




_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 5
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/23/2005 6:48:01 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8647
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
That's one reason I like playing against the AI... he's not hassling me when I'm slow on finishing a turn!

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 6
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/23/2005 7:13:28 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6588
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
I ran it again, in hex 32.32 (clear). Both leaders were the same (75 in all attributes). Japan only attacked.

Units started with

IJA Type 95
2 disabled
48 active

Support
2 disabled
48 active

vs.

T-34/76a
5 disabled
45 active

Support
5 disabled
45 active

Both formations had 50 support. The disabled tanks to start, are the work of the engine. In the DB, I had them set at 0 disablements.

Japan deliber attacked, and got 2-1.

Japan AV Base 53, adjusted to 100.

Russia AV Base ??, adjusted to 46.

Russia retreated.

Final status

IJA
1 disabled Type 95 (-1)
48 active Type 95
2 disabled support
48 active support
morale = 99
disruption = 0
fatigue = 5
exp = 76 (+1)

Russia
10 disabled Type 95 (+5)
32 active Type 95 (-13)
12 disabled support (+7)
31 active support (-14)
morale = 74 (-25)
disruption = 48 (+48)
fatigue = 96 (+96)
exp = 76


That was surprising. Little girlie tanks blew the snot out of the T-34s. Doubt that would have happend historically.

Let's try this again with the Russians attacking.

WitP engine = flip a coin to see who is the victor?

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 32,32
 
Japanese Deliberate attack
 
Attacking force 1440 troops, 0 guns, 96 vehicles
 
Defending force 1710 troops, 0 guns, 90 vehicles
 
Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1 
 
 
Japanese ground losses:
21 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 2
 
Allied ground losses:
29 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 1
 
 
Defeated Allied Units Retreating!
 


< Message edited by Feinder -- 10/23/2005 7:17:03 AM >


_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 7
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/23/2005 7:30:39 AM   
Feinder


Posts: 6588
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
New game. Russia deliber attacked, and got 0-1. (!)

Russia AV Base 48, adjusted to 44.

Japan AV Base 53, adjusted to 99.

Final status

IJA
5 disabled Type 95 (+3)
45 active Type 95 (-3)
1 disabled support (-1)
49 active support (+1) (so this guy was a "healed" disabled one).
morale = 99
disruption = 0
fatigue = 5
exp = 75
* no units destroyed.

Russia
5 disabled T-34
44 active T-34 (-1)
3 disabled support (+-2)
47 active support (+2) (so these guys were "healed" disabled support)
morale = 98 (-1)
disruption = 55 (+55)
fatigue = 5 (+5)
exp = 75
* so the Russians lost 1 T-34 in the attack, and did nothing to Japan.

Hrumph. I was rather expecting better results. I'm also concrened that the anti-armor rating maybe is NOT being reflected in the odds.

****

Brain fart.

I just checked for HQs.

Allies have no command HQ within range of that hex. But IJA -does- have Burma Army (command HQ), a little to the SE. The unit is in range, and appears to be getting the 90% bonus for the HQ.

Well, at least we know that command HQs are important!

-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 8
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/23/2005 1:46:37 PM   
Tom Hunter


Posts: 2194
Joined: 12/14/2004
Status: offline
It does look like you tested HQ effects more than the actual unit capabilities. Still the result is not what one would expect, is it? No amount of leadership should make up for the fact that the Japanese tank can't actually hurt the Russians.

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 9
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/23/2005 3:19:32 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5251
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
A low velocity 37mm should have virtually no effect on the armor of a T-34 (of any model). By contrast a 76mm shell hit on one of Japan's tin foil light tanks should be nearly always fatal. Even with their effectiveness doubled because of the HQ, 2 x 0 = 0. Perhaps the Japs are using that ammo that the Haunted Tank carried in the comic book. Don't think J.E.B. Stuart's ghost would be helping them out though.

(in reply to Tom Hunter)
Post #: 10
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/23/2005 4:52:51 PM   
Feinder


Posts: 6588
Joined: 9/4/2002
From: Land o' Lakes, FL
Status: offline
What was that?! Sgt. Rock?! I remember those! I little Stuart taking on Tiger tanks, and half the Wehrmacht!

I'll try to do more tests today, but I have a turn to work on...

:^)
-F-

_____________________________

"It is obvious that you have greatly over-estimated my regard for your opinion." - Me


(in reply to spence)
Post #: 11
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/26/2005 9:51:41 PM   
spence

 

Posts: 5251
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
Been offline for a couple of days - sorta thought this thread would have had something further to report. I wasn't really planning to write it all up but:

I conducted a little experiment myself. Using Scen 7 playing head to head I arranged for a fight between 2 Jap Tank Regts with 1/3rd of a Mech Corps on a clear terrain hex NW of Vladivostok and East of Mukden. Before the battle I moved all the Japanese border forces out of the way, stood down both air forces and essentially road marched the opposing forces to the hex in question. The Japanese had Type 97 and Type 89 Tanks (close to 200 or so). The Russians had T34/85s, Su85s, Su100s and JSU152s (around 100 tanks/spgs but the Soviets had arty and infantry support in significant amounts and the Japanese had essentially none of either).
After all forces arrived in the projected arena I saved and then went back and ran 1) a Deliberate Attack by the Japanese
2) a Shock Attack by the Japanese
3) a Deliberate Attack by the Russians
4) a Shock Attack by the Russians
Each attack was run from the originally saved setup.
There was little to choose from in the results from either side's attacks. Losses of vehicles were fairly close in both Deliberate Attacks. The Russians lost fairly heavily in their Shock Attack; the Japanese less so.

The heaviest Japanese gun in the combat was a 57mm. The Russians had 76mm
towed AT guns, 85mm guns on their MBTs, and 100mm and 152mm guns on their SPGs. I'm pretty sure that IJA tank armor was akin to tinfoil by the standards of the 1944-45 European battlefield. A hit by any Russian AT weapon or a 152 HE round would almost certainly be a hard kill. With only 57mm and 37mm weaons the Japanese would be most likely to cause a "soft kill" against the Russians if they had any effect at all. I didn't check individual unit status after each run. I did after some of them though. Decreases in numbers of tanks and increases in disabled tanks seemed fairly equal the times I did look.

Not at all a scientific experiment but I'm inclined to believe that in WitP:
A TANK IS A TANK IS A TANK


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 12
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/26/2005 10:09:44 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22613
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

What was that?! Sgt. Rock?! I remember those! I little Stuart taking on Tiger tanks, and half the Wehrmacht!


From Sgt. Rock comic book - there was one segment called "The Haunted Tank".

My favorite is where The Haunted Tank got flipped over and was sliding down an embackment upside down and scored a fatal hit on a Tiger with its 37 mm. gun...

(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 13
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/26/2005 10:10:29 PM   
Terminus


Posts: 41451
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline
Don't you just love poetic licence?

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 14
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/26/2005 10:17:20 PM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22613
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Don't you just love poetic licence?


Truly inspiring!! Probably explains how the Japanese fought the Soviets on equal footing in Feinder's and Spence's battles...

(in reply to Terminus)
Post #: 15
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/26/2005 11:29:47 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
Sooooo, yet another disappointing aspect of the WITP combat model? Anyone gonna test this some more to highlight it undeniably? I rarely have internet access and my PC is not online so unfortunately I can't run any.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 16
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/26/2005 11:32:35 PM   
Tankerace


Posts: 6399
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rtrapasso

quote:

What was that?! Sgt. Rock?! I remember those! I little Stuart taking on Tiger tanks, and half the Wehrmacht!


From Sgt. Rock comic book - there was one segment called "The Haunted Tank".

My favorite is where The Haunted Tank got flipped over and was sliding down an embackment upside down and scored a fatal hit on a Tiger with its 37 mm. gun...


Actually, there was a documented case of an M5A1 Stuart putting 6 or 7 rounds of 37mm AP into a Tiger I's engine comparment, and the crew abandoned it. See, it IS possible... with imagination.

_____________________________


Designer of War Plan Orange
Producer of Carrier Force
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition

Avatar is of me with my 1918/1967 FTR Ishapore Sht LE Mk III*.

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 17
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/26/2005 11:35:28 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
I remember the USS Stevens short strips in GI Combat. Neato.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 18
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/27/2005 12:04:45 AM   
rtrapasso


Posts: 22613
Joined: 9/3/2002
Status: offline
quote:

Actually, there was a documented case of an M5A1 Stuart putting 6 or 7 rounds of 37mm AP into a Tiger I's engine comparment, and the crew abandoned it. See, it IS possible... with imagination.


Ah yes - anything is possible, but some things are more possible than others.

IIRC, good ol' "Haunted Tank" managed this with one shot, and (iirc) it was against frontal armor. (while upside down, sliding down an embankment...)

(in reply to Tankerace)
Post #: 19
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/27/2005 1:42:05 AM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline

Worst tanks with better command and support can win against superior tanks, the Germans ran almost up to Moscow with mostly medium tanks facing KV-1 and T-34.

As for how WITP engine works, it seems to me that firepower is not the main factor to kill the enemy. Two units of same size may fight for weeks and still be at 95% OB, while any unt retreating lost 14-15% of its OOB. And the game probably uses firepower to disable enemy squads during battles (and occasionally destroy) but not so much of it.

As for the Japanese tanks resisting a 152mm I won't be surprised if each "hit" wil saw a check of anti-armor vs armor and the first hit disabled the tank, the second will destroy it, so every Japanese tank is harder to destroy than in RL.

On the other hand the fact that the majority of tank losses took place during a retreat is fairly historical. In WWII most of the tanks lost were scuttled by their crews because of mechanical failure or lack of fuel or a hit that may be perfectly reparable. From the tanks that were out of order in a battle, the winning side was usually able to recover and recover up to 75% of them.

(in reply to rtrapasso)
Post #: 20
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/27/2005 3:57:41 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25317
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Was anyone really expecting Steel panthers type results? Land combat in the game is abstracted to a large degree despite the presence of devices with specific attributes. WiR has a similar setup and the results there tended to 'even out' more times than not in terms of losses (not counting retreat losses) because despite the attack/defense ratings of the individual AFV's, in the end, they go into a combat formula that calculates an overall odds level. I remember there was a big flap about similar type 'tests' for Norm's Operational Art of War.

Does that mean a tank is a tank is a tank in WitP? Lets see.


Two units.....clear terrain hex.

100 JS-III tanks vs 100 Type 89A medium tanks (each exp/morale 70/75)


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/09/45


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 65,26

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 1000 troops, 0 guns, 100 vehicles

Defending force 3200 troops, 0 guns, 100 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
127 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 11

Allied ground losses:
34 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 1


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 65,26

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 3168 troops, 0 guns, 99 vehicles

Defending force 900 troops, 0 guns, 90 vehicles

Allied assault odds: 6 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
688 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 63


Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Actual losses:

Japan - 57 (+18 more disabled)
USSR - 1 (none disabled)






_____________________________


(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 21
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/27/2005 4:06:14 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
Damn Jap fanboys! No way the USSR should have lost a JSIII. Yet another example of the designers' bogus biased slant

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 22
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/27/2005 4:09:06 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25317
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
1 excited Soviet tank driver stuck his head out to get a view of the action, got decapitated by a Japanese shell, fell back into the tank and leaned against the accelerator.

The driverless tank then drove itself into a ditch....a total loss.



_____________________________


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 23
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/27/2005 4:14:24 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
Damn Jap fanboys....Allied materiel should be invincible! Or at least come back as an Essex class.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 24
RE: So I created a little tank battle... - 10/27/2005 5:09:59 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25317
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feinder


Anyway, the odds were surprising. I set them both to deliberate attack.

Japan got 1 to 1 odds.

Then Russia attacked. And got 0 to 1 odds. I couldn't write fast enough for the base and adjusted for the second attack. But I remember that Japan's defense was adjusted up considerably, which is why Russia got 0-1.

<snip>

The japanese unit had very little disruption/morale/fatigue loss however. And Russia had has something like 90 disruption (probably from the 0-1 attack).

-F-


Not really, when you think about it. (puts on his CSI hat)

Note the assault value of the two units if you set up identical outfitted armored units (only with different vehicle devices) The assault value for example in my quick little test was 100 for the 100 x Type 89's and 100 for the Soviet heavies. This nearness in assault value helps explain the combat odds. The device specifics help determine actual disablement/losses but not necessarily the combat odds unless the disperity is extreme (such as with the JS-III test). The better protected AFV's tend to stand up better to damage and inflict more actual damage on the light Japanese AFV's however actual combat resolution may not always match losses in battle. i.e. Tank unit A could "win" the battle and force/rout a retreat but still end up losing more AFV's doing so vs. Tank unit 'B'

However even when preforming such artifical tests (just afv's fighting) there are still other variables at work besides the disablement/destruction. whatever the weapon being used, a result of 0-1 (modified) means a failed attack and that will result in a high dose of disruption. An attacker which scores 1:1 or better in the modified odds 'technically' has succeeded in it's attack (irregardless of it's losses) and will suffer minor disruption.

Disruption and fatigue remain the most important factors. 100 T-34's heavily disrupted will preform poorly even against lightly protected tanks.

In a way the test shows how much more thought has to go into one's attack/defense strategy. I reset up my little test, this time using less extreme examples and put 100 Sherman V's into the Sov unit.

This time i opted to have the Sov unit defend to avoid the risk of a disrupted attack failing causing major add'l disruption which would set up the unit for a retreat next turn.

Japanese unit attack turn 1: 1:1 odds. "a successful" attack but only a local one, no retreat. No serious disruption but actual tank losses heavy in doing so.

Russian unit after turn 1. Since it didn't also attack, but only defended that round it's disruption was also low on a par with the Japanese unit. No Shermans were destroyed or disabled.

Repeat attack turn 2. Japan again carves out a local victory 1:1 modified odds but loses another batch of tanks.

Russian unit Turn 2. again...low disruption and more substantially.... NO lost or disabled Shermans.

Turn 3. Russia opts to attack while Japan opts to defend.

Here is the result:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 08/11/45


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 65,26

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 4260 troops, 0 guns, 198 vehicles

Defending force 2700 troops, 0 guns, 170 vehicles

Allied assault odds: 1 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
264 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 21

Allied ground losses:
37 casualties reported
Vehicles lost 4


This time Russian attack succeeds locally but doesn't force a retreat....but again it's tank losses are miniscule compared to the more vulnerable Japanese unit.

status after 3 turns: (disabled)operational

Japan
(42)40 Type 89A
(2)98 Motorized support

Russia
(3)97 Sherman V
(1)99 Motorized support

Japan lost 18 Type 89A's outright (total loss) with 42 more knocked out. (but recoverable since no retreat yet)
Russia lost 0 tanks in terms of total loss but suffered 3 tanks knocked out or disabled (also recoverable)

So what does this mean?

A tank is most certainly not a tank is most certainly not a tank in this game.....

but....

neither is a tank a Get out of Jail free card either. Your own strategy + terrain + exp + leadership etc etc can override the stats of your tank and mean the difference between a failed (0-1) and a successful attack(1-1 or higher)

and of course a forced retreat will result in additional losses that will tip the balance. Being made to retreat should be costly. In tank terms as one poster already mentioned, they can abstractly represent abandoned vehicles left behind to the enemy.





< Message edited by Nikademus -- 10/27/2005 5:18:29 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Feinder)
Post #: 25
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> So I created a little tank battle... Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.219