Allied forces surrender and Japanese head for the hills

[stldiver]

I was wondering based on my current PBEM's I have seen numerous battles where I force the Japanese out of a base and they head to the jungles and I have to root them out. On the other hand in the same situations the allies surrender. When I discussed this with Jutland13, his thoughts and I concur are that that is based on the fact that historically the japanese fought to the death and the allied forces would surrender in similar situations.

In the battles I am talking about forces with no retreat or base near, islands or completly behind enemy lines.

Was this coded into the game, or am I unfortunate that none of my allied troops head for the bush on Islands.

Anyone have thoughts or now about this?

[SGT Swanson]

Sounds like different styles of fighting techniques is being depicted in the game.  The Japs were taught never to surrender.  They'd rather commit suicide instead.  The allies believed in living to fight another day.
 
Hope this helps.

[Feinder]

Allied forces (maybe not Chinese), will surrender if they meet retreat requirements while in a base hex with no valid retreat path.

To meet retreat requirements, an attacking force must gain odds of (2 + fort level) to 1. So with no forts, an attacker must get 2:1 odds to force a retreat. Or with 6 forts, an attacker must get 8:1 odds to force a retreat.

A unit will attempt to retreat to a base to which it has a valid supply link. Basically, a supply link is a path to a friendly base that is either (2 hexes cross country) or (5 hexes via train) or (25 hexes via rail). Secondly, if all potential supply links are interdicted by enemy ZOCs or contested ZOCs (where both sides “own” the hex), there is no valid retreat path. This means you CANNOT trace supply thru or into a hex that contains ANY enemy unit (even if you have friendly units in the hex). So if you have friendly units at Moulmein and one hex outside of it, -and- the enemy also has units in those two hexes, you CANNOT retreat into Moulmein because it is a contested ZOC (basically it’s considered an enemy ZOC for both sides).

With no valid retreat path, Allied units will surrender. Japanese units however will “head for the hills” as you put it.

The clinch is the Allied unit must be in a base. If the combat occurs in open terrain, the Allied unit will either retreat if possible, or “head for the hills” as well. But an Allied unit in open terrain will –not- surrender (and you have to grind them down just like Japanese units).

-F-

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: stldiver

When I discussed this with Jutland13, his thoughts and I concur are that that is based on the fact that historically the japanese fought to the death and the allied forces would surrender in similar situations.

In terms of game mechanics I believe the Japanese are less likely to surrender, but they Banzaii instead, which rarely leads to anything but their anialation. This is fairly historically accurate. Most Japanese would Banzaii and most of the time they were wiped out without really inflicting much damage on the Allies.

Historically I believe it is incorrect to say that the Allies would surrender everytime. There are many cases where the Allies were pushed into the wilderness and continued on the fight in places like Burma and Timor. The difference here was the idea that there was a point to the fighting. If something could be achieved by continuing the fight the Allies usually found a way to do it.

This really came as a great shock to the Japanese as they expected the Allies to rollover and give up without much of a fight. IIRC, the Dutch failed to do so and it really ticked off the Japanese commanders to no end, the thought of having to fight a guirella war in the DEI.

However, it is true that there is a difference in mentality between westerners and Japan. When faced with massive loss of life, in situations like Bataan or Singapore western Generals saw no alternative to surrender. There was no place to run to and no way to fight a guerilla war. Suicidal attacks for the sake of honor wasn't really seen as honorable by westerners.

My thoughts on the situation.

[stldiver]

Thanks you have confirmed what we though.