Surrender routines. Please explain.

[Erik Rutins]

While I'm not one of the designers, it's my recollection that out of base combat is intended to take longer - because of historical examples (some mentioned here) that support that type of model. The land combat system does have to cover everything from atoll landings to land war in Asia and as with other systems it does hit corner cases where it doesn't work as well.

With that said, it may be that out of base combat is taking too long, is too hard, etc. It may be that a designed routine that should mitigate that is not working. I don't know the answer, but we'll take a look the next chance we get.

Getting back to the first point, there are plenty of examples in the actual war where taking a base (which is often a relatively small part of a hex and static) was much quicker and easier than clearing the enemy out of the rest of the "hex" worth of land. An enemy may not have the strength to hold a particular static location, but over the size of a 60 mile hex, they can fight you for a good long time from one defensive line to another, particularly on favorable terrain.

Again, with that said, there may be a bug at work particularly for surrounded out of base units, but we won't know until we have time to take a look. Personally, I usually try to plan my land combats to avoid fighting long fights in out of base areas. If the enemy "goes bush" while surrounded, let them - leave enough forces in the base to make sure they can't retake it and they'll wither.

On a side note (only slightly related to this thread).... I wish more folks would realize just how much variance there was in the actual Pacific War. Just about anything could and did happen and many complaints I've seen come down to folks expecting a certain range of variance and being surprised when it's larger than that (and goes against their side). Yes, there really was that much randomness in the real war and I feel it's one of the strengths of Gary's designs that he allows for it while still allowing for the "normal range" result to be the most common. Many games are more deterministic and allow everything to be calculated out so that the outcome is pre-determined. That's not the case here and while there are a lot of players that realize that, I keep seeing reports that make it clear that the problem is the fact that a result did not meet expectations, not that it couldn't have happened in reality.

Regards,

- Erik

[moses]

[:)]Great!!

Glad that this will be looked at someday as in the instances I've seen small units not only remain alive (which would not be so bad) but also prevent supply transfer, movement, etc through the hex.

I have currently nice examples of the situation and can easily construct more whenever anyone wants one.[:D][:D]

[Dereck]

At the risk of being flamed (again) ... I think one hot spot seems to be that, on average, Allied units will either surrender or retreat at anything over 2:1 odds while the Japanese will stay put even if you get 1000:1 odds.

That disparity may be reasonable for a short period at the beginning of the game but to see it exist throughout may not be.

[Nomad]

Erik, one thing that you and 2x3 might look at is having some chance that a unit will not retreat from a base hex when defeated at 2:1 odds. The control of the hex might be won at that point but the defeated units could stay in the hex with minimal loss to fatigue and/or disabled/disrupted/destroyed elements. It seems there is too extreme of a result from 1:1 to 2:1 odds. At 1:1 the attacker often loses a lot and the defender doesn't, then at 2:1 the attacker loses little and the defender is essentially out of commision for a month or more. That should be the result for some higher odds like 4:1 or higher. Anyway food for thought.

[Nikademus]

any unit that obtains 2-1 modified combat odds will retreat as long as there is a valid path *and* the defender unit has a fort level of 0

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins


Yes, there really was that much randomness in the real war and I feel it's one of the strengths of Gary's designs that he allows for it while still allowing for the "normal range" result to be the most common. Many games are more deterministic and allow everything to be calculated out so that the outcome is pre-determined. That's not the case here and while there are a lot of players that realize that, I keep seeing reports that make it clear that the problem is the fact that a result did not meet expectations, not that it couldn't have happened in reality.

Regards,

- Erik

I was pleasantly surprised at the wide range of result I got when I did testing. Even with all the variables controlled there is a very large range of possible out comes. I agree this is perhaps the best feature of this design. It does make testing tough however. [:)]

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

any unit that obtains 2-1 modified combat odds will retreat as long as there is a valid path *and* the defender unit has a fort level of 0

Not necesarily true Nikademus. I, and most likely others, have had plenty of times when the opposing units will stand firm at 1000:1 odds and most of the time that unit seems to be Japanese.

[Nikademus]

I've not seen it. Do you have a save?

bear in mind the modified odds has no bearing on the chance for retreat other than 2:1 vs a fort level 0 or 2+ for the fort level. (example, fort level 1 defender....modified odds to force a retreat required 3:1)

[Berkut]

My beef is with a surroudned unit being a lot stronger than that same unit int eh same hex wihtout being surrounded.

In may game (save avialble if anyone cares) there are 75000 Chinese troops which attacked Kaefang. I cut them off, *completely* surrounded them, and I typically get something like 3:1 casulaties, with badly lost fights when I try to attack them with the 100k troops I ahve in the hex with them, and Kaifeng is my base.

I think I am going to just move some of the surrounding troops out of the way so they can escape. Lame.

[Nikademus]

in some cases, the routine does seem to take too long. Others feel about right. There may well be something not working totally correctly, however with at least some of the examples sent to me, part of the reason was the player's tactics. The overall effect does slow combat pace down. Forced retreats should be more devasating as again, using the abstraction it represents the shattering of the armed group....including the abandonment of weapons, vehicles and in some cases, the scattering of troops (such as in china).

With a surround situation, and with no retreat option available, some troops may hunker down and fight harder. Usually a man fights hardest when his back is against the wall....give him an out....he might take it, dropping/abandoning his weapon in the process.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

in some cases, the routine does seem to take too long. Others feel about right. There may well be something not working totally correctly, however with at least some of the examples sent to me, part of the reason was the player's tactics. The overall effect does slow combat pace down. Forced retreats should be more devasating as again, using the abstraction it represents the shattering of the armed group....including the abandonment of weapons, vehicles and in some cases, the scattering of troops (such as in china).

With a surround situation, and with no retreat option available, some troops may hunker down and fight harder. Usually a man fights hardest when his back is against the wall....give him an out....he might take it, dropping/abandoning his weapon in the process.

Certainly true.

But not in WW2, for the most part. The need for fuel, ammunition, and food for large combat formations makes the ability to "hunker down" 75,000 troops essentially impossible.

See any number of examples from the Eastern Front. Being surrounded is a Bad Thing.

Now, if you want to argue that the REAL problem is that the game allows too much mobility and agressiveness in the Chinese theater, I am right with you. But given what it is, it should not "reward" committing what is in reality a gross operational error.

And it isn't the time that is the problem - I would have no problem with it taking weeks to reduce a pocket. The problem is that the process of reduction ends up harming the guy who surroudned the enemy than it does the enemy. Essentially, you should be able to pretty much just sit there and wait for them to surrender.

The algorithm seems to be something like

if (defenderLostBattle && defenderCanRetreat)
defenderRetreat
else
crushAttacker

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

The problem is that the process of reduction ends up harming the guy who surroudned the enemy than it does the enemy.

I just do not see this. When all is said and done the isolated unit is gone, eliminated. The attacker may have a large number of disabled squads but he will recover. Even in the short term the attacker may suffer more disablment but again will recover them faster because he has supply.

Saying the surronded unit is better off than the surrounded just due to the number of disabled elements in a single attack is taking individual results too literally and not looking at the larger result of an ongoing battle.

[Erik Rutins]

ORIGINAL: Berkut
See any number of examples from the Eastern Front. Being surrounded is a Bad Thing.

Not really comparable to the Pacific, unfortunately, in lessons or results. I agree that in general terms, being surrounded is a bad thing, but the various factors in the Pacific (including the nature of the Japanese soldier) made this a very different proposition in reality as far as how long or costly the reduction of a surrounded force would be. This is not to say there isn't a bug somewhere, but it's definitely by design _in general_ that defeating forces that aren't defending a specific point is harder and that the Japanese are far harder to wipe out entirely.

Regards,

- Erik

[moses]

Seriously you've never seen it???? I've seen it dozens of times where I have very high odds and the unit does not retreat. I have one in China now that has existed for over two months. I have a small surrounded Japanese force being atacked by three Chinese Corps in the woods. I can get 10 to one odds anytime I want but all that happens is that the attackers lose 100 men and the defender losed 10 or 12.

everything works as it is supposed to as long as the unit has a good retreat path or is in a base that it owns. Otherwise it won't retreat or take losses.

Anyway I'm glad they will take a look at this. Who knows maybe I have it all wrong.[:)]

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: Berkut
See any number of examples from the Eastern Front. Being surrounded is a Bad Thing.

Not really comparable to the Pacific, unfortunately, in lessons or results. I agree that in general terms, being surrounded is a bad thing, but the various factors in the Pacific (including the nature of the Japanese soldier) made this a very different proposition in reality as far as how long or costly the reduction of a surrounded force would be. This is not to say there isn't a bug somewhere, but it's definitely by design _in general_ that defeating forces that aren't defending a specific point is harder and that the Japanese are far harder to wipe out entirely.

Regards,

- Erik

But NOT as hard as it is in the game. In some - if not most cases - it's not only hard but almost impossible. Even the Japanese "super soldier" when out of supplies couldn't fire their guns and were wiped out. One thing that never seems to be mentioned is that despite how hard the Japanese supposidly were at being wiped out the US Marines got to be even BETTER at wiping them out.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: moses

Seriously you've never seen it???? I've seen it dozens of times where I have very high odds and the unit does not retreat. I have one in China now that has existed for over two months. I have a small surrounded Japanese force being atacked by three Chinese Corps in the woods. I can get 10 to one odds anytime I want but all that happens is that the attackers lose 100 men and the defender losed 10 or 12.

everything works as it is supposed to as long as the unit has a good retreat path or is in a base that it owns. Otherwise it won't retreat or take losses.

Anyway I'm glad they will take a look at this. Who knows maybe I have it all wrong.[:)]

Nope, I'm sure there is a problem given the extreme examples in my current game, posted in the AARs.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

Certainly true.

But not in WW2, for the most part. The need for fuel, ammunition, and food for large combat formations makes the ability to "hunker down" 75,000 troops essentially impossible.

Actually the Japanese routinely did hunker down bereft of essential supplies. They did it in Burma, they did it elsewhere. Not because they were supermen, but because they were fanatically loyal. Cleaning them out (as represented by the Allied player "owning the base" contained within the hex) did take time. sometimes months.

See any number of examples from the Eastern Front. Being surrounded is a Bad Thing.

Yes...however, how long did it take to reduce those pockets? Here is where i think some people at times lose track of the game's scale. Unlike most other operational and strategic level games, which resolve turns in 1 week increments (example: War in Russia), WitP resolves turns in 24 hour increments. A person who's complaining its taking dozens upon dozens of turns to reduce an enclave may only be going a month in game time. That of itself is not extreme.....the impaitience the player has at wanting to "move on" can make it seem that way of course.

Now, if you want to argue that the REAL problem is that the game allows too much mobility and agressiveness in the Chinese theater, I am right with you. But given what it is, it should not "reward" committing what is in reality a gross operational error.

I do think the movement system allows the Japanese an advantage in redeploying their forces. I attempted to even the playing field a bit in that regards though now its looking like i need to make another adjustment too. [:D]

The problem is that the process of reduction ends up harming the guy who surroudned the enemy than it does the enemy.

Do you mean by the casualty returns? Yes sometimes has me shaking my head too. However one thing to keep in mind is tactics being used, couple with the fact that bereft of a forced retreat, your (the attacker) not really suffering much in the way of "permanent" casualties. However those of the defender are. they will continue to get weaker.

An idea i'd wanted to incorporate was similar to those found in other land wargames....mainly that if you are forced to retreat but can't, you can remain in the hex but you have to pay an extra penalty in casualties. That might fix the issue of overlong resistance.

[pcasey]

ORIGINAL: treespider
<snip>

On a side note what is the actual area of a hexagon 60 miles across? Is it 3600 sq/miles? I'm too lazy to do the geometry.

If you mean a hexagon with 6 60 mile long sides: Aprox 9353 square miles
If you mean a hexagon which is 60 miles across (and hence made up of 6 30 miles sides): 2338 square miles

Basically the thing is made up of six symetrical triangles, so you just solve for hte area of one of these triangles (given the side length) and multiply by six. It reduced to:

3 * sqrt(side^2-(0.5*side)^2)*side

[Nomad]

The area of a Hexagon that is 60 miles across is 3117.69 square miles. [:)]

BTW, the sides are 34.64 miles long. [;)]

[Black Mamba 1942]

ORIGINAL: Nomad

Erik, one thing that you and 2x3 might look at is having some chance that a unit will not retreat from a base hex when defeated at 2:1 odds. The control of the hex might be won at that point but the defeated units could stay in the hex with minimal loss to fatigue and/or disabled/disrupted/destroyed elements. It seems there is too extreme of a result from 1:1 to 2:1 odds. At 1:1 the attacker often loses a lot and the defender doesn't, then at 2:1 the attacker loses little and the defender is essentially out of commision for a month or more. That should be the result for some higher odds like 4:1 or higher. Anyway food for thought.

These are results that I would really like to see.[;)]

Retreated out of the base, but still in the hex, till further combat knocks them out.
Then surrender or Bonzai if no retreat is available.