Urban Hex Question--Canoerebel Stay Out

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

IRL, the rule of thumb is 3:1 for a successful deliberate attack. In WITP, if you launch a rolling attack, as argued above, the entire defence line gets disrupted over 60 miles, not just adjacent elements not immediately in contact. Now if in WITP you launch a rolling attack with 33.3% of your force (assume that the attacker has an overall advantage, preferably 3:1, before urban etc modifiers), you could argue that roughly equal numbers on both sides are affected by the WITP disruption. To me that seems probably acceptable, but at only 10-15% of available attacking forces, such an attack would be borderline gamey and definitely too reminiscent of Trollelite.

Alfred

Defenders are disrupted only to the extent that they are seriously "pressed" in battle. An attack of 1:10 will not significantly disrupt a defender, while it WILL create serious disruption in the attacker. If anything in WitP the gameyness is against the attacker as his troops are effectively ordered to spread out over that 60 mile front and attack, instead of probing an area.

The way that this tactic could be considered gamey is that I believe it will require all the defenders to defend, thus making them use supplies at a higher rate. But the attacker pays the price by attacking at lower odds and taking higher casualties.

Further, how do you distinguish between units resting in that 60x60 mile hex and those that are resting in that 60x60 mile hex next to it? Is it gamey to have units resting in an adjacent hex and how is that different than units resting in the same hex?

Further, how would any of this be more gamey really than conducting AF attacks every turn to keep bases using supplies for repair?

No game engine is perfect, but I don't see that in general this is at all a gamey tactic. That's just my own two cents.

Edit: to me what would be highly unrealistic is to require a besieging army to only make full on frontal assaults...that's not the way a siege works.

[Cathartes]

You don't need 1:1 odds to reduce a fort.  I've lost my fort levels to my opponent's 0:1 attacks.  It is less likely, but it does happen and it doesn't always require a large number of engineers.  

[John 3rd]

Thank you gentlemen for the vigorous discussion! 
 
I think I will rotate among the 8 Inf Div I have there and send in a pair at a time with my Artillery Regiments bombarding and see what happens.
 

[engineer]

Carthartes original:
You don't need 1:1 odds to reduce a fort.  I've lost my fort levels to my opponent's 0:1 attacks.  It is less likely, but it does happen and it doesn't always require a large number of engineers.  

 
True, high odds attacks can capture bases despite unreduced fortifications, low odds attacks typically require the fortifications to be reduced to zero, and stiff 0:1 attacks do rarely reduce fortifications.  After taking care of the base, then there is what happens with the garrison.  Cut-off and surrounded Allied troops often surrender, but Japanese forces typically - if not always - fight to the death.  So Allied players have the issue to how to most effectively make sure those Japanese don't make more trouble for the Allies.  This makes ground combat for the Japanese player different (I won't say easier) since capturing the base is often enough to secure the objective, but for Allies they either have to leave an escape hatch for the Japanese to retreat or have a follow-up strategy to deal with the surrounded troops. 
 

niceguy2005 original:
Defenders are disrupted only to the extent that they are seriously "pressed" in battle. An attack of 1:10 will not significantly disrupt a defender,

 
This is an excellent point.  A pure probing attack is just about understanding the derating factor from pure assault value to effective strength. A "successful" rolling attack is one where the attacker's casualties are at rough parity with the defender compared to sending in the whole stack and seeing attacker casualties at 2:1 to 4:1 greater than the defender's losses.  At very low odds, the defenders have good ratios and if the defenders have a "target rich environment" the ratios favor them again.  The right level for a rolling attack does vary with the strength and cohesion of the defender, and if the defender is too strong, then pure bombardment to soften them up needs to continue.   
 

[Lameduck]

If you don't mind a new player asking, can this "rolling attack" also be used by the defender? I see in several AAR's where the attacker comes in with a large force, and then waits several days for his disruption to come down before he starts his attack. Could the defender use one unit at a time to raise the entire attacker's force disruption (and force the attacker to burn up supply faster) as a way to buy time?

[Jzanes]

Good point Lameduck.
 
The only difference I can think of is that the defender usually has fewer units to "roll" through, less supply, and little or no opportunity to be pull their units out of the line to rest and rebuild.

[John 3rd]

Welcome to the conversation Lameduck.  You raise an interesting idea.  If one had the supplies it might be one heck of a way to keep the attacker disrupted. 
 
Anyone ever try that?
 

[Lameduck]

To be honest John, it was your AAR and the fight over central Burma that made me ask the question. Both of you seem to have had a large number of troops made up of several units, but just by looking at the map, it seemed like you should have had an easier time with supply than the Allies trying to bring supply over Burma trails. In this case, small preventive attacks might have forced the Allies to use up more supply making it take longer for him to recover his disruption. I honestly don't know. I'm a new player, and while something may look good in theory, how the game actually handles it may be something completely different.

[John 3rd]

Sorry Lameduck--I didn't see your reply until just now.  I have two young boys--4 and 20 months--and they take all my weekend time normally.  We had a wonderful 72* day yesterday, worked in the wyard, and even had a campfire with smores last night.  Today----SNOW!  Got love Colorado...
 
Your idea regarding Burma is serious and excellent idea.  I have been contemplating it since it was broached earlier in the conversation.  My problem in Rangoon is numbers--he has about 2.5-1 over my in Assault Strength.  I've got Forts at 6, plenty of supply, and my units are gaining in strength whenever he doesn't attack.  My real hopes sit in Moulmein where my troops are also recovering and gaining strength.  Dan has left 5 units in the hex between Rangoon and Moulmein.  Into that area I wll attack within a week or so.  If I simply move into the hex, then it really hurts his supply situation and he will HAVE to move troops for a response.
 
This is my thinking at least...
 

[engineer]

Lameduck original:
If you don't mind a new player asking, can this "rolling attack" also be used by the defender? I see in several AAR's where the attacker comes in with a large force, and then waits several days for his disruption to come down before he starts his attack. Could the defender use one unit at a time to raise the entire attacker's force disruption (and force the attacker to burn up supply faster) as a way to buy time?

 

niceguy2005 original: 
Defenders are disrupted only to the extent that they are seriously "pressed" in battle. An attack of 1:10 will not significantly disrupt a defender, while it WILL create serious disruption in the attacker. If anything in WitP the gameyness is against the attacker as his troops are effectively ordered to spread out over that 60 mile front and attack, instead of probing an area.

 
I think niceguy2005 has the answer here.  The defender is significantly weaker than the attacker so in order to keep the attacker off-balance, he would need to risk a much larger relative fraction of his troops.  If you're lucky, I've seen a "spoiling attack" completely ruin the attacker's day.  Typically, this occurs when the attacker arrives before the defender's position and is uncertain of the exact strength.  They have a choice of making a probing attack, doing some simple bombardbments or making a general attack.  What I've seen is a Japanese general assault that results in 0:1 odds and leaves the attack with 80+% disruptions.  Then the counter-attack in the same turn sweeps the Japanese from the field and forces them to retreat.  The trouble here is that you have no idea if your spoiling attack will fall on dazed and confused troops or massively superior numbers who are ordering their siege lines for a patient reduction of your position. I think spoiling attacks are very risky.  
 
The only ways I made an Allied stand at Mandalay work logistically were:

• Airlifted headquarters units to Mandalay (and the supplies magicly move with them).
• Used all of my air transport and some bombers to ferry supplies into Mandalay.