Major coast defenses in RHS: why Singapore, Manila, PH etc are hard to take.

[el cid again]

The second reform of what became the RHS package was diligent research into coast defense forfifications.
One Forum member observed that it might be more politically acceptable to give Japan its coast defenses -
probably the best in the world - if the Allies were given their due. Andrew Brown participated in this process,
and CHS introduced increased gun counts at about the same time RHS split off from it. Points wholly without
them gained them (see Port Moresby and Rabaul, the lesser islands of Hawaii, etc). Over time other changes
included creating new device types - including both Soviet and Dutch variations on 180 mm guns (of vastly
different ranges and shell weights, they could not be the same device).

[el cid again]

Just adding guns was not enough for me: I was upset that Singapore fell in vastly less than 100 days - when 100 days was barely possible IRL. I also eventually created the problem that Oahu might fall too soon - in the EOS scenarios implementing the Japanese concept of an attack on Hawaii (which most US officers at the time thought they should have done). The problem - in tests - is that coast defense units lose their devices too fast - faster in fact than regular units do. It appears this is a statistical thing - there is an equal chance any device will be lost - and even if there are 4 14 inch guns (at Fort Drum) or 5 15 inch guns (at Singapore) - vs vast numbers of infantry or other squads - the chance you will lose one heavy gun is the same as you will lose one light squad. So over time the coast defense units became wholly denuded of their heavy guns - when IRL these were the last to go (Fort Drum had to sabotage its guns).

Setting out to change this - I tried many things.

One solution was to use hard code. ONE slot - only - has a unit that refuses to give up supplies. I use that slot for the Corregedor/Fort Drum defenses - but stock used it for a unit at PH - probably it was intended for the heavy coast defense unit.

A more general solution was to have major coast units self feeding. I tried stockpiles - but these dump on turn one. But dribbles work - kind of. The unit will share with its neighbors - but keeps more for itself.

Anyway - points with truly large coast defense units are hard to take because of those units - which are somewhat supply independent - and which have many organic forts. I never completely got these units as strong as I wanted to do - as strong as history - but they are in the right ball park - at least within a close order of magnitude or two.

When you try to take a place like Singapore, Manila, Pearl Harbor, Tsushima, or any other point with a large coast defense formation - it isn't the supply sink that is your problem. Wether or no there is a sink - it will be hard to take. You need to reduce it - and generally do so without the help of battleships (unless you are willing to suffer ship damage). You CAN bring in heavy artillery - and you CAN use bombers. But your ultimate trump is just cut off all supply generation in the hex and attack day after day. I regret that - isolated - this will work in fewer days than it should.

[NormS3]

I have tried to use a ship for fort drum, this way it allowed me to armor the weapons and keep them in use.  Only problems that i've had are that the IJNAF proceedes to torpedo Ft. Drum several times and the concrete battles ships sinks.  I am going to try armoring the hull to the point where it can ignor the torpedos effects.
 
BTW- many thanks for all of your hard work and research, I've found that you provide more info that i did not know, or could not find on my own[&o][&o][&o]

[Bogo Mil]

ORIGINAL: el cid again
there is an equal chance any device will be lost - and even if there are 4 14 inch guns (at Fort Drum) or 5 15 inch guns (at Singapore) - vs vast numbers of infantry or other squads - the chance you will lose one heavy gun is the same as you will lose one light squad.

Yes, this is a major weakness of the ground combat system in witp - all stacks take the same losses. Another symptom of this: If you fight with several units of different sizes, the small units are completely out of action very fast. Do a deliberate attack against a strong enemy, and the divisions lose 22 out of 320 squads, the NLF lose 22 out of 24 squads.

I have an idea how you could try to moderate the problem a bit (don't know if it really works): Try to spread out the "small things" (especially inf squads) over as many stacks as possible. If a unit doesn't use all possible device slots, you can use several slots for infantery - those should absorb more of the damage, then.
Major fortifications could be accompanied by another static unit with many (small to medium) stacks of infantery or field hand squads ("flesh armour").

[akdreemer]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The second reform of what became the RHS package was diligent research into coast defense forfifications.
One Forum member observed that it might be more politically acceptable to give Japan its coast defenses -
probably the best in the world - if the Allies were given their due. Andrew Brown participated in this process,
and CHS introduced increased gun counts at about the same time RHS split off from it. Points wholly without
them gained them (see Port Moresby and Rabaul, the lesser islands of Hawaii, etc). Over time other changes
included creating new device types - including both Soviet and Dutch variations on 180 mm guns (of vastly
different ranges and shell weights, they could not be the same device).

To give credit to where credit is due I also participated in this endeavor form the get go. Indeed there is a copy of the USN analysis of the Japanese Coast defenses on the AHS website.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil

ORIGINAL: el cid again
there is an equal chance any device will be lost - and even if there are 4 14 inch guns (at Fort Drum) or 5 15 inch guns (at Singapore) - vs vast numbers of infantry or other squads - the chance you will lose one heavy gun is the same as you will lose one light squad.

Yes, this is a major weakness of the ground combat system in witp - all stacks take the same losses. Another symptom of this: If you fight with several units of different sizes, the small units are completely out of action very fast. Do a deliberate attack against a strong enemy, and the divisions lose 22 out of 320 squads, the NLF lose 22 out of 24 squads.

I have an idea how you could try to moderate the problem a bit (don't know if it really works): Try to spread out the "small things" (especially inf squads) over as many stacks as possible. If a unit doesn't use all possible device slots, you can use several slots for infantery - those should absorb more of the damage, then.
Major fortifications could be accompanied by another static unit with many (small to medium) stacks of infantery or field hand squads ("flesh armour").

Due to slot limits and unit counts, most coast defense units are composite units - In the Olongapo/Bataan hex you have a combined unit with the names of several of the CD forts - but it also includes a "regiment" of Marines (really a battalion), another "regiment of Marines" that is mainly sailors (also a battalion), the Army garrison troops of Corregedor, the base troops of Subic Bay Naval Station, and others. I tried different solutions - even more than one location in the same hex - one of them with lots of forts - before concluding that a composite unit was best compromise. However - until I figured out how to feed it as an individual - I didn't solve the problem of the "disappearing guns" (pun because some CD guns ARE disappearing guns in a different sense).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: AlaskanWarrior

ORIGINAL: el cid again

The second reform of what became the RHS package was diligent research into coast defense forfifications.
One Forum member observed that it might be more politically acceptable to give Japan its coast defenses -
probably the best in the world - if the Allies were given their due. Andrew Brown participated in this process,
and CHS introduced increased gun counts at about the same time RHS split off from it. Points wholly without
them gained them (see Port Moresby and Rabaul, the lesser islands of Hawaii, etc). Over time other changes
included creating new device types - including both Soviet and Dutch variations on 180 mm guns (of vastly
different ranges and shell weights, they could not be the same device).

To give credit to where credit is due I also participated in this endeavor form the get go. Indeed there is a copy of the USN analysis of the Japanese Coast defenses on the AHS website.

I forgot this. But it is true. I also got help from the Curator of the US Army Museum on Oahu (Burl Burlingame) who sent a complete listing of all batteries - and their dates of service. There was also one of the CHS contributors who helped with the Manila Bay defenses - and then a brand new pair of Osprey books on the defenses of Manila and Oahu came out just at the right time. We probably spent too much time on this sort of thing - but it is nice to have correct fort listings instead of generic ones.

One thing AK did was to experiment with - and argue for - the rail guns. Ultimately I adopted his solution - and the coast defense guns that are rail mobile are a separate unit - which can be moved to a different place - because (as his research showed) this was contemplated. We have a similar unit on the US West Coast too - with bigger guns.