StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Okay, everyone, let me get to the point here.

Today we were meant to start Q4 1925. We haven't. We can't, as we have no less than three wars that are still in early Q3, one not advanced beyond Q2.

I want this fixed.

Beo, Blue, I want firm plans for Sino-Manchurian operations intended after D+30, in mid-June, to roll on, then further ops (and potential Soviet counter-ops determined by myself and the mods) to catch us up to 1 October 1925.

Siege, Thanas, you two are doing brilliantly in your war...and it's a month and a half behind the game. I know you're talking peace now but I'd like it if you two could give me something to catch us up to 1 October.

Wilkens, Ryan, you're the least behind, at just under two months. However, your war is arguably special because A) he who stabilizes a defense line first will probably manage to hold it and B) given the location and various other factors, your war has the biggest potential for escalation into a wider conflict and has the most attention from the rest of the world. Wilkens is undoubtedly planning his Phase 4 operations and Ryan ripostes; I'd like you two to have them done soon. Thankfully we're approaching that magical D+14 when the war will probably be in firm stalemate and we can fast-forward a bit. Certainly it is the most exciting of the conflicts currently

I understand the Holiday season may delay things, so don't take this as "Get it done now or face my merciless mod wrath" ultimatum, just kind of a plea to get things going so the game can go back on track.

And before people mention it, Unreal time has the problem that the stuff happening in it can influence others' actions and perhaps negate decisions otherwise made as the rest of us continued on. If the wars had kept up better the time freeze wouldn't be necessary, but as it stands... it is.

As it stands, Q4 will not begin until December 26th, next Saturday. This gives everyone a week, not counting inability to get online due to family festivities this Thursday and Friday, to get caught up. I hope this is sufficient.

I'm leaning on having Artillery, Heavy Artillery, and Siege Artillery brigades. Heavy Artillery represents 155mm guns and such and comes at 25 guns per brigade. Siege Arty would be railway guns and such, 10 guns per brigade.

Steve wrote:

If this applies from here on in, I will retroactively redo my OOB, because so far I am operating under the assumption that a heavy arty is 6-9 siege guns and that a normal arty is 50-60 guns.

Point. If anything I'd just universalize it to 50 guns per arty brigade and 10 siege guns per siege arty brigade. But I do want a universal figure. And 54 is kind of an odd one to stick with.

My suggestion: Types of artillery
Siege
guns that are normally attached to battleships, or moved and fired from railways
~10/siege artillery bde
Heavy
guns big enough to require disassembly for movement, but not so large that they can't be moved by gun carriage, and towed. <10 inch diameter.
~32/bde
Medium
standard (~6" equivalent)
~50/artillery brigade
Light
~75/bde (105mm)
Both Siege and Heavy guns are considered to be part of Siege Artillery Brigades
Medium and Light guns are normal Artillery Brigades
Very light artillery pieces, such as 37mm anti-tank guns, are not counted as part of the artillery brigade.

I think what we most need on clarification is what qualifies as a heavy bomber.

Well, I think we all know what this calls for.

*gets dog whistle* Okay Shep, time to unleash your miltech technobabble!

Heavy bomber is anything that is appreciably larger than a fighter? That is to say, torpedo bombers, dive bombers, etc aren't heavy bombers, but twin engine bombers, bombers than can carry more than ~2000 lbs are heavy? (2000 lbs being about the weight of an air launched torpedo).

Hrm, sounds good.

As for your spread, I figured 105mm and 75mm pieces were organic to independent divisions and brigades.

Steve wrote:Wilkens, Ryan, you're the least behind, at just under two months. However, your war is arguably special because A) he who stabilizes a defense line first will probably manage to hold it and B) given the location and various other factors, your war has the biggest potential for escalation into a wider conflict and has the most attention from the rest of the world. Wilkens is undoubtedly planning his Phase 4 operations and Ryan ripostes; I'd like you two to have them done soon. Thankfully we're approaching that magical D+14 when the war will probably be in firm stalemate and we can fast-forward a bit. Certainly it is the most exciting of the conflicts currently

For the record I expect that Phase 4 will be the last before either Ryan goes over to the offensive or a diplomatic solution breaks out so I'm making a Phase 4 map plan AND Building a currently unlisted map of defensive plans for Phase 5/Colombian Counter-Attack.

Afghanistan takes a more global outlook. Soon, offers will be made to other beleagured nations of safe harbour for their citizens!

Afghanistan: Sanctuary, Opium Paradise, and Desert Hellhole!

Steve wrote:I'm leaning on having Artillery, Heavy Artillery, and Siege Artillery brigades. Heavy Artillery represents 155mm guns and such and comes at 25 guns per brigade. Siege Arty would be railway guns and such, 10 guns per brigade.

Uhm. 25 155mm guns for a heavy artillery brigade is problematic as it fails to correspond to any real life unit. The corps level artillery regiments were usually a mix of 105 and 155mm guns.

Alternatively I'd propose having things as such:

A. Artillery brigade: That becomes the unit representing divisional artillery with each division consisting of 3 infantry +1 artillery brigades. ~50 medium howitzers (75mm and 105mm ones)

B. Heavy artillery brigade: That is the Corps level support unit. ~50 heavy guns (105mm and 155mm ones)

C. Siege artillery brigade: Circa 10 guns battleship calibre levels

The advantage this way is that the divisions will be directly corresponding to real life ones as for about everyone a division consisted of 3 infantry and 1 artillery regiments. And it also makes the number of divisions that can be available for a given manpower all the more realistic.

Otherwise I see no point in any change. The artillery brigade as now could continue being the corps support unit with ~50 heavy guns.

Given the Shepistani intentions for such, loomer, I guess you presume the Dutch could get into Afghanistan via Byzantium or the USSR?

Steve wrote:I'm leaning on having Artillery, Heavy Artillery, and Siege Artillery brigades. Heavy Artillery represents 155mm guns and such and comes at 25 guns per brigade. Siege Arty would be railway guns and such, 10 guns per brigade.

*groan*

How does this affect the existing OOB now?

Doesn't, well, not fully. Basically, since Siege and Regular Artillery brigades are the same cost (or should be), you'd just say that certain of each type could be heavy arty brigades instead.

Steve wrote:Doesn't, well, not fully. Basically, since Siege and Regular Artillery brigades are the same cost (or should be), you'd just say that certain of each type could be heavy arty brigades instead.

So I have to redesignate the lot now? Good Grief... I calculated the number of artillery brigades I needed based on the force structure I wanted.

Someone is trying to convince me that the basic artillery formation I had in mind would be non-existent, that the 75 and 105mm guns would be organic units to brigades and divisions anyway, and that the "plain" artillery brigades would be all 155mm and 200+mm pieces as Corps-level attachments. Does anyone have disagreement?

Steve wrote:Someone is trying to convince me that the basic artillery formation I had in mind would be non-existent, that the 75 and 105mm guns would be organic units to brigades and divisions anyway, and that the "plain" artillery brigades would be all 155mm and 200+mm pieces as Corps-level attachments. Does anyone have disagreement?

I have those sorts of brigades as largely division-level attachments...

Steve wrote:Someone is trying to convince me that the basic artillery formation I had in mind would be non-existent, that the 75 and 105mm guns would be organic units to brigades and divisions anyway, and that the "plain" artillery brigades would be all 155mm and 200+mm pieces as Corps-level attachments. Does anyone have disagreement?

I would prefer that, rather than to go back and redo parts and pieces of the OOB to account for the myriad artillery brigades.

Steve wrote:Someone is trying to convince me that the basic artillery formation I had in mind would be non-existent, that the 75 and 105mm guns would be organic units to brigades and divisions anyway, and that the "plain" artillery brigades would be all 155mm and 200+mm pieces as Corps-level attachments. Does anyone have disagreement?

My suggestion (the division bit is rough and malleable but seems about right):

Divisional artillery:

1 6-gun battery of 75mm guns per infantry battalion.

2 6-gun batteries of 105mm guns per infantry brigade.


Artillery brigades (corps-level attachments):

3 battalions of three 6-gun batteries. 2/3 are 155mm pieces and the other battallion is 203mm.


Siege artillery brigades (special-assignment army-level attachments):

2 battalions of 3 2-gun batteries (total 12 pieces) - this is appropriate for stuff like Skoda siege mortars or Big Berthas or largish fortress artillery pieces.

OR

2 battalions of 2 1-gun batteries (total 4 pieces) - this is appropriate for railway guns.

ADDENDUM (since it came to mind before I hit 'submit'):

Dora and Schwerer Gustav, were they built later in this game, would essentially comprise Siege Artillery Brigades unto themselves because of the enormous supply and support group required to operate them.

Thoughts?

Ryan Thunder wrote:

Steve wrote:Someone is trying to convince me that the basic artillery formation I had in mind would be non-existent, that the 75 and 105mm guns would be organic units to brigades and divisions anyway, and that the "plain" artillery brigades would be all 155mm and 200+mm pieces as Corps-level attachments. Does anyone have disagreement?

I have those sorts of brigades as largely division-level attachments...

Why am I not surprised?

Steve wrote:

Ryan Thunder wrote:

Steve wrote:Someone is trying to convince me that the basic artillery formation I had in mind would be non-existent, that the 75 and 105mm guns would be organic units to brigades and divisions anyway, and that the "plain" artillery brigades would be all 155mm and 200+mm pieces as Corps-level attachments. Does anyone have disagreement?

I have those sorts of brigades as largely division-level attachments...

Why am I not surprised?

Because I had a hideous number of MRLS for the size of my military in the last game?

Besides, my active military is supposed to be defensive and has to fight in the jungle. Buttloads of artillery and mortars lends to that.

Ryan Thunder wrote:

Steve wrote:Someone is trying to convince me that the basic artillery formation I had in mind would be non-existent, that the 75 and 105mm guns would be organic units to brigades and divisions anyway, and that the "plain" artillery brigades would be all 155mm and 200+mm pieces as Corps-level attachments. Does anyone have disagreement?

I have those sorts of brigades as largely division-level attachments...

It also means you've got a huge deficiency in close quarters combat. I don't know if you realize but in the jungles of South America before man portable radio unless you have a pre-set firing grid (your fortress BNs) or spotters who can observe and relay movements by wire then you are SoL. I'm figuring a lot of my success (rolling over the 180th and burning a couple divisions to the ground) mostly has to do with your arty not being able to shift targets on the fly. If your spotters are hit or if your wire is cut then your guns are firing blind...unless they have artillery observation aircraft.

So in predesignated defenses or in level areas where you can see your opponents movement heavy doses of large caliber artillery are great. In fluid situations where comms are spotty then they are firing blind and just about useless.


It also leaves you short of troops in the trenches as a comparative matter.

So have we come to a ruling on Artillery yet? Simply because it effects my war and because I'd like to have as accurate an OOB as possible.

CmdrWilkens wrote:It also means you've got a huge deficiency in close quarters combat. I don't know if you realize but in the jungles of South America before man portable radio unless you have a pre-set firing grid (your fortress BNs) or spotters who can observe and relay movements by wire then you are SoL. I'm figuring a lot of my success (rolling over the 180th and burning a couple divisions to the ground) mostly has to do with your arty not being able to shift targets on the fly. If your spotters are hit or if your wire is cut then your guns are firing blind...unless they have artillery observation aircraft.

So in predesignated defenses or in level areas where you can see your opponents movement heavy doses of large caliber artillery are great. In fluid situations where comms are spotty then they are firing blind and just about useless.

It also leaves you short of troops in the trenches as a comparative matter.

How the fuck am I supposed to know any of that until you deign to point it out at a moment when its both in your interest to do so and impossible for me to change, you worthless sack of shit?

Wikipedia has nothing. The goddamn US Army Field Manuals have nothing that I can find. I'm not going to go combing through the goddamn public library for hours on end to get some tiny amount of incredibly vague information that's probably going to be as good as useless for this purpose anyway for a goddamn internet RPG.

So, no. My artillery hits things out of LOS. Bombards it into little bits of gore and twisted metal, effectively. Justify it however you please, but that is what it does, and that is what it will do to your armies. In the goddamn jungle if need be, because that's what covers more than half of my fucking country, so they're good at fighting in it and from it, and this typically convenient 'realism' of yours can go fuck itself with a rusty pole.

Ryan Thunder wrote:How the fuck am I supposed to know any of that until you deign to point it out at a moment when its both in your interest to do so and impossible for me to change, you worthless sack of shit?

Wikipedia has nothing. The goddamn US Army Field Manuals have nothing that I can find. I'm not going to go combing through the goddamn public library for hours on end to get some tiny amount of incredibly vague information that's probably going to be as good as useless for this purpose anyway for a goddamn internet RPG.

So, no. My artillery hits things out of LOS. Bombards it into little bits of gore and twisted metal, effectively. Justify it however you please, but that is what it does, and that is what it will do to your armies. In the goddamn jungle if need be, because that's what covers more than half of my fucking country, so they're good at fighting in it and from it, and this typically convenient 'realism' of yours can go fuck itself with a rusty pole.

You have no right to insult Wilkens like that because he did the research you didn't and handed you your ass as a result. If you don't like the way the game is played, the door's over *there*.

Ryan Thunder wrote:

CmdrWilkens wrote:It also means you've got a huge deficiency in close quarters combat. I don't know if you realize but in the jungles of South America before man portable radio unless you have a pre-set firing grid (your fortress BNs) or spotters who can observe and relay movements by wire then you are SoL. I'm figuring a lot of my success (rolling over the 180th and burning a couple divisions to the ground) mostly has to do with your arty not being able to shift targets on the fly. If your spotters are hit or if your wire is cut then your guns are firing blind...unless they have artillery observation aircraft.

So in predesignated defenses or in level areas where you can see your opponents movement heavy doses of large caliber artillery are great. In fluid situations where comms are spotty then they are firing blind and just about useless.

It also leaves you short of troops in the trenches as a comparative matter.

How the fuck am I supposed to know any of that until you deign to point it out at a moment when its both in your interest to do so and impossible for me to change, you worthless sack of shit?

Wikipedia has nothing. The goddamn US Army Field Manuals have nothing that I can find. I'm not going to go combing through the goddamn public library for hours on end to get some tiny amount of incredibly vague information that's probably going to be as good as useless for this purpose anyway for a goddamn internet RPG.

So, no. My artillery hits things out of LOS. Bombards it into little bits of gore and twisted metal, effectively. Justify it however you please, but that is what it does, and that is what it will do to your armies. In the goddamn jungle if need be, because that's what covers more than half of my fucking country, so they're good at fighting in it and from it, and this typically convenient 'realism' of yours can go fuck itself with a rusty pole.

Okay, let me get this straight. You didn't avail yourself of the many military experts here before drawing up your intricately planned forces, and whenever you find out there's a weakness to them you demand that the weakness be ignored?

Jesus fucking Christ, your entire strategy as it stands is to dig in before the Canal and stop Wilkens cold, then blast him to bits with your fucking over-done artillery forces using, well, the very same things he mentioned; all the guns and batteries pre-ranged so the crews know immediately what elevation and charge to use so they can rain deadly steel on advancing Mexicans trying to break through your trenches, aided by spotters behind the immediate trenches phoning in fire missions. But yet because a flaw in your military system was pointed out - that your guns have limited use in on-the-fly situations without spotters and intact phone lines and your divisions are understrength for close-quarter battles for lack of infantry - you start whining like a little bitch and demanding you be given a pass from realism because "WHA WHA I HAVE A FLAW IN MY MILITARY I MUST BE COMPLETELY PERFECT!!!"

No. You don't get a pass. If Wilkens forces your arty-heavy forces into a battle of movement he's going to have a fair advantage over you. Just as you have an advantage over him in a static defensive war because of your wanked out "all divisions have a brigade of heavy artillery" organization. I swear, if I reenact maintenance costs soon it's going to be due to you, and this time I'm going to levy them by unit type because artillery, in active use or even in active service and used for training, can be resource intensive (replacing barrels, maintaining arsenal stocks).

That's how it's going to be. Take it or leave it.

Fuck it, anyone wanna comment on my OOB as it currently stands? More specifically, the military experts? Because I would find it hilarious if it turns out to actually be well designed, since I just decided on relatively arbitrary force ratios with a cavalry theme.

Steve wrote:Okay, let me get this straight. You didn't avail yourself of the many military experts here before drawing up your intricately planned forces, and whenever you find out there's a weakness to them you demand that the weakness be ignored?

No. I only care about weaknesses that are just cripplingly bad and/or completely destroy my strategy because some technicality that I either failed to see or would've had to do some serious research to find out. "Oh by the way did you know that x? No? Well, I did, so I effortlessly steamroll your stuff in this scenario that we're in right now. " is getting old fucking quick.

For example, my 'monitors', which I built on the (admittedly misinterpreted) advice of one of those experts. Turns out they can't actually harm anything. So like half my fleet tonnage is wasted on slow, junky ships that Wilkens' stuff just laughs at. I may as well be an NF 1 or something.

I actually decided that my fleet would be so modern that it wouldn't include any ships older than 1920. As a result I didn't use up all my fleet tonnage because I determined that I wouldn't be able to build that much stuff in five game years. But I did that knowing full well what it implied, so you won't see me complaining about that even if it fucks me over in the end.

On the other hand stuff like my armies sucking at jungle fighting because I gave them lots of artillery so that they'd be good at jungle fighting because they'd have more readily avaliable fire support due to it being indirect is whineworthy, in my humble opinion.

Jesus fucking Christ, your entire strategy as it stands is to dig in before the Canal and stop Wilkens cold, then blast him to bits with your fucking over-done artillery forces using, well, the very same things he mentioned; all the guns and batteries pre-ranged so the crews know immediately what elevation and charge to use so they can rain deadly steel on advancing Mexicans trying to break through your trenches, aided by spotters behind the immediate trenches phoning in fire missions.

Yeah. That is my strategy, which had to be adjusted because it turned out that Wilkens could liesurely stroll in with a massive army and kill 30 000 troops while losing less than a third of that in return in spite of things like those troops having plenty of artillery attached, the home advantage, prepared for a defense, etc.

I'm not suggesting they could've held them off at all, by the way, but I don't think it hurt nearly as much as it should've.

But yet because a flaw in your military system was pointed out - that your guns have limited use in on-the-fly situations without spotters and intact phone lines and your divisions are understrength for close-quarter battles for lack of infantry - you start whining like a little bitch and demanding you be given a pass from realism because "WHA WHA I HAVE A FLAW IN MY MILITARY I MUST BE COMPLETELY PERFECT!!!"

No, it just happens to suck in all the worst ways it possibly could. See, according to Wilkens, I have a country in a fucking jungle that sucks at fighting in the jungle. How the fuck does that make sense?

And my defensive navy sucks at, well, defending, even though I was told that NF 2 with my monitor designs and some cruisers would've been sufficient for that.

Just about the only thing that's functioned as intended at all is my coastal forts, and we all know how much everybody hates those now because of a goddamned typo...

No Ryan, if you want to fight Jungle warfare, you do it with foot soldiers that specialise in Jungle warfare. How the fuck do you plan to drag huge guns through the jungle? Carry it in pieces? Feth, the Japanese achieved excellent Jungle mobility using Bicycles, and mostly light to medium artillery.

And artillery is only as useful as it is defended. If he decided to flank your artillery units, you do realise that you are quite fucked?