War in the Pacific as Planned--Allied

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli

That would make me nervous as the Japanese player.  That's a safe haven that the Allies can build up without much fear of retaliation.

Historically, it didn't lend itself to being an axis of advance.

[herwin]

December 19/20 1941

Attempt to sneak some ships out of Manila fails.

Georgetown falls--will Washington be next?

KB has split--currently about 150 nm south of Hong Kong.

[herwin]

December 20/21 1941

That's interesting! He deployed the KB to suppress the AVG group that has been sweeping Canton. I wonder how I can take advantage of that...

Tavoy captured.

Japanese get a bloody nose (1-2) in a shock attack near Hankow. Time to counterattack!

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: herwin

December 19/20 1941

Attempt to sneak some ships out of Manila fails.

Georgetown falls--will Washington be next?

KB has split--currently about 150 nm south of Hong Kong.

No, he died of pneumonia, not a fall! [:'(]

[herwin]

December 21/22 1941

Mostly air operations. Cabanatuan and Taiping fall.

[herwin]

December 22/23 1941

SS I-17 sunk by HK TF near Hawaii!

Otherwise quiet.

[herwin]

Alor Star (11th Indian Division) surrenders. Bombardment attacks at Clark Field. Japan attempts a shock attack at Mauban and fails.

KB heads back towards Singapore.

[herwin]

Christmas Eve, 1941

Quiet.

[herwin]

Christmas, 1941

Invasion at Davao.

Shock attack at Clark Field reduces fortifications.

Deliberate attack at Manila captures the city.

Japanese shock attack at Mauban goes nowhere.

See commentary.

[herwin]

WWII ground combat involved the interaction of five factors: firepower, terrain, tempo, tactical and operational skill, and deployment.

Begin with the last, deployment: a defending force deployed for mobile operations had no advantage over its opponent. Hasty defences (foxholes and the like, level 2 in WitP) reduced its vulnerability to about 20% relative to the enemy. A developed position (level 4 in WitP) gave it about a 10% vulnerability, all defined based on exposure to fire. That is, a soldier trying to advance presented about five times the target area that a soldier in a foxhole presented and about ten times the target area that a soldier in a developed position presented.

So a moving force was at a distinct disadvantage and had to suppress the defence to advance. That it did by establishing a base of fire with part of its force and maneuvering with the remainder. So a 3-1 advantage over a dug-in defense translated to about 1 km/day advance in rolling country, out of a theoretical maximum of about 4 km/day possible against a minimal defence.

Now firepower expressed itself as target acquisition followed by target engagement. Both processes involved relative vulnerability. That is, troops in a hasty defence were able to both localise and engage targets about five times as fast as exposed troops (see above). However, the engagement dynamics were a Lanchester square law, so a stalemate in this situation corresponded to a sqrt(5) force ratio between the attack and defense. Once the attacking force deployed more than sqrt(5) weapons systems per defending weapons system in its fire base, it possessed firepower superiority, and suppressed the defensive firepower. That allowed it to advance with the remainder of its force. The fire base for an armored force was its tanks and APCs, by the way.

Terrain expressed itself in reduced sight-lines and restricted movement. Armored forces needed supporting infantry to provide target acquisition, so there was an optimal ratio of tanks to infantry for a given terrain type.

Tactical and operational skill was a multiplier.

Relative tempo was important. If a force could make tactical moves faster than its enemy, it could deploy--forcing its opposition to deploy--and pull out, delaying an advance. If it was slower, it had to stand and take it.

Most firefights were ambushes, with the defence having a 5 or 10-1 kill rate advantage. Most losses, however, were during fire and movement, with the loss rate for each side to be about the same in percentage terms. The attack had to have a firepower superiority of about 6-1 to bias the percentage loss rate by 2-1 in its favor.

So in game terms, what we should not see is the initial firefight wiping out the defence, resulting in a final AV ratio of 100-1 or so. If the attacking force has a major advantage in firepower, it should suppress the defence, reducing attacker casualties and allowing a rapid advance and a final close engagement at approximately the original AV ratio. If the attacking force lacks that advantage, but still has firepower superiority, we should see higher percentage casualties for both sides, but at about the original rate, followed (eventually, after several days) by a final close engagement at a modified AV ratio. If the attacking force has insufficient firepower, it should get a bloody nose with the defense having a firepower advantage. A mobile force defending against an infantry-heavy assault should be able to delay the final close engagement almost forever. So the main difference is whether the close assault even happens. A shock attack advances faster, but by taking extra casualties, with the expectation that the final close assault happens earlier.

Here's what I'm seeing:

At Taiping:

Ground combat at 49,76 (near Taiping)
 
Japanese Shock attack
 
Attacking force 4198 troops, 26 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 254
 
Defending force 723 troops, 5 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 23
 
Japanese adjusted assault: 194
 
Allied adjusted defense: 1
 
Japanese assault odds: 194 to 1
 
Combat modifiers
Defender: leaders(-), fatigue(-), morale(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

What should have happened is a rapid Japanese advance with few casualties, followed by a 10-1 assault.

Here's another:

Ground combat at 53,61 (near Tavoy)
 
Japanese Shock attack
 
Attacking force 3807 troops, 20 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 127
 
Defending force 298 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 13
 
Japanese adjusted assault: 106
 
Allied adjusted defense: 1
 
Japanese assault odds: 106 to 1
 
Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), morale(-), experience(-), supply(-)
Attacker: shock(+), leaders(-)

It should have been a 10-1 assault after a rapid advance.

The third:

Ground combat at Clark Field (79,76)
 
Japanese Shock attack
 
Attacking force 23265 troops, 167 guns, 265 vehicles, Assault Value = 734
 
Defending force 9075 troops, 187 guns, 147 vehicles, Assault Value = 287
 
Japanese adjusted assault: 542
 
Allied adjusted defense: 406
 
Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 2)
 
Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 1
 
Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)
 
Japanese ground losses:
      1007 casualties reported
         Squads: 3 destroyed, 73 disabled
         Non Combat: 6 destroyed, 114 disabled
         Engineers: 1 destroyed, 14 disabled
      Vehicles lost 77 (7 destroyed, 70 disabled)
 
 
Allied ground losses:
      467 casualties reported
         Squads: 9 destroyed, 33 disabled
         Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 68 disabled
         Engineers: 1 destroyed, 15 disabled

This was about right.

Next at Manila:

Ground combat at Manila (79,77)
 
Japanese Deliberate attack
 
Attacking force 29914 troops, 240 guns, 18 vehicles, Assault Value = 984
 
Defending force 13195 troops, 75 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 223
 
Japanese adjusted assault: 680
 
Allied adjusted defense: 141
 
Japanese assault odds: 4 to 1 (fort level 0)
 
Japanese forces CAPTURE Manila !!!
 
Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker:
 
Japanese ground losses:
      380 casualties reported
         Squads: 2 destroyed, 14 disabled
         Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 24 disabled
         Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
 
 
Allied ground losses:
      14910 casualties reported
         Squads: 317 destroyed, 0 disabled
         Non Combat: 1058 destroyed, 0 disabled
         Engineers: 25 destroyed, 0 disabled
      Guns lost 87 (87 destroyed, 0 disabled)
      Units destroyed 6

In reality, this would have been a slog--the two forces were evenly matched, and the final close assault should have been delayed for days or weeks. (It was during the 1944-45 campaign.)

The final example is at Mauban:

Ground combat at Mauban (80,78)
 
Japanese Shock attack
 
Attacking force 5003 troops, 55 guns, 42 vehicles, Assault Value = 122
 
Defending force 5803 troops, 123 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 184
 
Japanese adjusted assault: 133
 
Allied adjusted defense: 47
 
Japanese assault odds: 2 to 1
 
Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), leaders(-), disruption(-), preparation(-)
 experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)
 
Japanese ground losses:
      224 casualties reported
         Squads: 14 destroyed, 0 disabled
         Non Combat: 13 destroyed, 0 disabled
         Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
      Vehicles lost 15 (14 destroyed, 1 disabled)
 
 
Allied ground losses:
      151 casualties reported
         Squads: 1 destroyed, 7 disabled
         Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 9 disabled
         Engineers: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled

This seems about right, but illustrates the use of a shock attack to increase odds in a way that seems ahistorical.

The numbers don't seem that off--what seems to be wrong is the combat model as a whole. The programmers seemed to have a concept of how combat worked based on miniatures and force-fit things to match.

[herwin]

I wouldn't do it this way if I were designing the combat model from scratch, but if I were modding the existing model, I would try doing it this way.

1. Establish the posture of the attacking forces and the defenders. I.e., the roles of various units.

2. Bombardment, air strikes, and counterbattery to establish the degree of suppression. This would result in area-fire casualties to each side.

3. The attacking force advances and is ambushed. A full-strength division (400-500 AV) with 36 heavy AT and perhaps 72 light AT being attacked by an armoured corps (perhaps 500 tanks) should kill about 60 tanks. The infantry would be ambushed as well, although with lesser casualties. An attacking infantry corps with two divisions in the lead should take about 100 AV in casualties from a defending division fortified at level 2.

4. The attacking force goes to ground and returns fire. An attacking infantry corps with two divisions (1000 AV) should do about 40 AV in damage against infantry in field fortifications. A full corps should do about 60 AV of damage against field fortifications and 30 AV against a fortified zone. A reinforced corps (2000 AV) attacking a fortified zone should do about 40 AV of damage. If the attacking force does not gain firepower superiority, the attack ends here. Firepower superiority is defined as taking less percentage casualties than your opponent. AT assets take damage from armoured counterfire.

5. The parts of the attacking force not required for the base of fire advance slowly (or quickly for shock attacks). This results in additional casualties--about the same magnitude as the initial exchange for an attack that reaches the MLR. So use the percentage of the attacking force moving (pM) as a rough estimate of the intensity of the attack. Shock and mechanised attacks should double pM. A mechanised force on defence halves pM, due to delaying tactics and the threat of counterattacks. The attacker and defender casualty percentages should be about one tenth of pM, but a shock attack will double casualties for the attacker, and a mechanised attack will double casualties for the defender. A mechanised defence will halve the casualties for the defender.

6. The attacking force eventually reaches the MLR. Since this takes up to four days, use pM as the probability that the MLR is contacted.

7. Now the ratio of AV is used to determine who wins the dogfight. If the attackers win, the defenders are stripped of their fortifications and a manoeuvre battle takes place. That means the attackers continue fire and manoeuvre as the defenders, unprotected by fortifications, withdraw from the hex. Recalculate pM as in 5, taking account of the lack of defensive fortifications.

[FatR]

Your calculations do not take into account quality of the troops (poorly trained troops, like most of the Chinese forces, were easily forced to keep their heads down), morale (demoralized troops, like British forces in Singapore, were swift to fall back in the face of the enemy pressure, and slow to counterattack), the immense bonus (of concentration) that holding operational and tactical initiative provided, and the domino effect that often resulted from the part of the defending force in the way of the main assault suffering a decisive defeat and/or giving enough ground to compromise the integrity of the defensive line. Save for great disparity in quality of troops, or mutual concentration of massive forces on unusually narrow front, a tactical breaktrough on the first day of battle was a rule, rather than an exception (an, by the way, an ambush when encountering new enemy forces during advance was an exception, rather than a rule). The outcome was determined by how well the defending side was able to contain it.

But anyway, this discussion is rather meaningless, as combat calculations are abstracted. I'd say this abstraction mostly gives realistic results (low-quality, poor-morale force with no apparent hope for relief should disintegrate near-instantly when facing the enemy that outnumbers them 3:1, even in a city, if that city is not prepared for defence). Well, defense became a bit too overpowering, IMO, once artillery got hit with the nerfbat, but not to the point of breaking the game.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: FatR

Your calculations do not take into account quality of the troops (poorly trained troops, like most of the Chinese forces, were easily forced to keep their heads down), morale (demoralized troops, like British forces in Singapore, were swift to fall back in the face of the enemy pressure, and slow to counterattack), the immense bonus (of concentration) that holding operational and tactical initiative provided, and the domino effect that often resulted from the part of the defending force in the way of the main assault suffering a decisive defeat and/or giving enough ground to compromise the integrity of the defensive line. Save for great disparity in quality of troops, or mutual concentration of massive forces on unusually narrow front, a tactical breaktrough on the first day of battle was a rule, rather than an exception (an, by the way, an ambush when encountering new enemy forces during advance was an exception, rather than a rule). The outcome was determined by how well the defending side was able to contain it.

But anyway, this discussion is rather meaningless, as combat calculations are abstracted. I'd say this abstraction mostly gives realistic results (low-quality, poor-morale force with no apparent hope for relief should disintegrate near-instantly when facing the enemy that outnumbers them 3:1, even in a city, if that city is not prepared for defence). Well, defense became a bit too overpowering, IMO, once artillery got hit with the nerfbat, but not to the point of breaking the game.

My concern was not the issues you raise, but how I would mod the existing combat engine in the direction of reality. The model I was describing earlier was developed during the Cold War for understanding at an operational level how to deal with a Warsaw Pact offensive. We may soon get a calibration point on its effectiveness.

[herwin]

December 26/27

KB hits Kuching. Japanese landings at Manado and Kuching. Davao captured.

More of the same nonsense. An AV superiority should decline in a firefight. Definding fire is what you have to work your way through to close with and destroy the enemy. Otherwise there would be no reason to maneuver, since you could destroy the enemy by fire alone. The game treats firepower as improving an AV superiority, and it doesn't work that way!

[witpqs]

Harry,

The other issue with your analysis is that AS (AV is aviation support in the game, AS is assault strength) is only a count of squads. It does not take into account their firepower. Look in tracker under devices, squads and see the columns for anti-soft and anti-hard. Also, the heavy weapons devices are not counted in the AS but obviously make a difference.

I'm not saying the model is super-right, just that there is more to the actual analysis of what it is doing.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Harry,

The other issue with your analysis is that AS (AV is aviation support in the game, AS is assault strength) is only a count of squads. It does not take into account their firepower. Look in tracker under devices, squads and see the columns for anti-soft and anti-hard. Also, the heavy weapons devices are not counted in the AS but obviously make a difference.

I'm not saying the model is super-right, just that there is more to the actual analysis of what it is doing.

Apologies for getting the two abbreviations confused.

Yes, but the problem is that the game engine assumes firepower improves an AS superiority over time. It usually didn't. Winning battles historically was about sustaining and increasing your AS superiority, but you could rarely defeat the enemy by fire alone. Eventually you had to go in and winkle him out, and so you had to survive a decreasing AS superiority as you closed. Fire and movement was about keeping his head down until you could gain a close combat superiority.

[herwin]

December 27/28 1941

Lots of air activity. KB off Brunei strikes Tarakan. Landing at Tarakan. Kuching captured--it's time to keep my distance. Manado holds out.

[witpqs]

I think the anti-soft and anti-hard of the squads themselves is actually part of AS, they just don't count it as part of the AS number displayed in the game. Guys going into the trench line with Tommy Guns have an advantage over guys going into the trench line with solely bolt-actions.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I think the anti-soft and anti-hard of the squads themselves is actually part of AS, they just don't count it as part of the AS number displayed in the game. Guys going into the trench line with Tommy Guns have an advantage over guys going into the trench line with solely bolt-actions.

I checked it, and AS is the effective squad count. Hard and soft firepower cause casualties, but don't play a role in the AS comparison.

[herwin]

I guess the game is meant to be played that way, but it seems really gamey to automatically shock attack when you have an AS mismatch and to be building death stars in China to make up for the vulnerability of small units to attacks by larger units. The optimal deployment there is a single humongous offensive stack and a lot of little 1-AS units to hold ground.