Reducing forts outside base hexes does NOT work!!!

[qgaliana]

I'm still puzzled by the fact the allied units won't retreat from your battle. Do they in fact have a retreat path? [&:]
 
I have to admit that a unit not retreating at 2:1 odds has been so rare for me that it never occured to me to check the forts. But I wonder if the forts are really your problem here.
 
If I were you, rather than bash my head, not knowing how this works, I'd recommend outflanking the position even if it takes a month or two. Unusual for WITP, but that's probably also what they would do in RL. Better to scrap one regiment in a long jungle march than 5 divisions in a frontal assault.

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

The complaint is now that one side has four more troops than another and so should win. It is that after doing all well to achieve local superiority and launch several attacks in a row that achieve good ratio (up to 2 to 1 for me, 4 to 1 for castor), it didn't change anything for the defender side. Had it been in a base hex, fort will have reduced by several levels now (by the way engineer will have a chance to do so) and the base may have fallen or not, but that is not the problem.

The problem is that field forts are not working as base forts, and are in fact far more resistant AND easy to build. Not the way it should be IMOO.

Exactly! And Thanks![&o]

I opened this thread to another time point out that forts outside of bases can´t be reduced! It´s not a thread about discussing tactics or what I or my opponent has done! Would this hex the fight occured in for two months been a base hex then I would have probably 10-20000 combat troops less disabled as in a base I would have a) the chance to bring down the forts and b) the chance to prevent further fort building!

Not so in this hex outside a base.

So I stand to what I said before! It´s clearly a disadvantage for an attacker if outside a base the forts can´t be reduced... [:-]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: qgaliana

I'm still puzzled by the fact the allied units won't retreat from your battle. Do they in fact have a retreat path? [&:]

I have to admit that a unit not retreating at 2:1 odds has been so rare for me that it never occured to me to check the forts. But I wonder if the forts are really your problem here.

If I were you, rather than bash my head, not knowing how this works, I'd recommend outflanking the position even if it takes a month or two. Unusual for WITP, but that's probably also what they would do in RL. Better to scrap one regiment in a long jungle march than 5 divisions in a frontal assault.

[:D] They didn´t even retreat after achieving several times 2 or 3:1. And needless to say I got a little upset when they didn´t even retreat when achieving a 4:1 (after all those "succesful" attacks before) [X(]!! Last thing I tried was a shock attack which had a lucky die roll and absolutely boosted my assault value and I achieved a 9:1. I´m pretty sure the forts were the problem. The problem for me is just the fact that if it would be possible to reduce the forts then those troops would have retreated after my second or third 3:1 attack and not after half a dozen attacks that caused more casualties to my troops (disablements but that doesn´t matter as those troops need long rest..) than to the troops of my opponent.

[qgaliana]

ORIGINAL: castor troy
[:D] They didn´t even retreat after achieving several times 2 or 3:1. And needless to say I got a little upset when they didn´t even retreat when achieving a 4:1 (after all those "succesful" attacks before) [X(]!! Last thing I tried was a shock attack which had a lucky die roll and absolutely boosted my assault value and I achieved a 9:1. I´m pretty sure the forts were the problem. The problem for me is just the fact that if it would be possible to reduce the forts then those troops would have retreated after my second or third 3:1 attack and not after half a dozen attacks that caused more casualties to my troops (disablements but that doesn´t matter as those troops need long rest..) than to the troops of my opponent.

I guess the 9:1 finally did the trick then?

I reread all of JW's posts and I guess you're right the forts were a factor. But it doesn't sound like there is a hard and fast rule for them being reduced. Maybe you had a terrible run of luck. As I said I can barely ever remember seeing units not retreat at 2:1.

Congratulations, in this extreme case, you may have just fought a land battle in WITP where the time frame was realsitic. [:D]

[Helpless]

Congratulations, in this extreme case, you may have just fought a land battle in WITP where the time frame was realsitic.

exactly.. [:D]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

Congratulations, in this extreme case, you may have just fought a land battle in WITP where the time frame was realsitic.

exactly.. [:D]

IIRC Mandalay surrendered on 1 May 42! I´m not even at the base yet and we´re in 20 May 42 now! [:D] Not to talk about the troop masses in Burma!

[Helpless]

IIRC Mandalay surrendered on 1 May 42! I´m not even at the base yet and we´re in 20 May 42 now! Not to talk about the troop masses in Burma!

why not to mention Manila then [;)]

p.s. guess this should be moved to AAR section [:D]

[castor troy]

ORIGINAL: Helpless

IIRC Mandalay surrendered on 1 May 42! I´m not even at the base yet and we´re in 20 May 42 now! Not to talk about the troop masses in Burma!

why not to mention Manila then [;)]

p.s. guess this should be moved to AAR section [:D]

I could mention it, same tactic here! All the territory in the Philipines is not important, stack all troops at Manila in an urban hex. Though as I have found out lately you are killing your troops yourself now at Manila... [:D]


Good idea to stop here... [;)]

[Yamato hugger]

ORIGINAL: herwin

I will discuss the ground combat model, however...

Whoever wrote it doesn't understand ground combat even as well as a real-world company first sergeant.

Hate to say this, but not many people DO understand ground combat as well as a real life Top.