Combat modification strat mode

[LoBaron]

What you is buy a fast reinforcement of a hex with a huge waste of AV. As Alfred pointed out already, without strat mode the adjusted Allied AV could easily be 4k+ instead of just 1.6k.

I completely agree with his post btw, we just look at the situation from slightly different angles. His is as usual the best analysis of the situation.

In the example you are giving you are neglecting that you are sacrificing a huge ammount of AV for the sake of flexibility. This would default to failure against a landing with suffigient AV. I consider it a must for an amphib assault to provide at least AV to obermatch the expected enemy strenght in the remote area by a factor of 2:1, this includes forces that can be moved in as reinforcements.

Do not forget that with the 600AV available your landing would have been crushed by the Allied troop strenght matter what, albeit maybe 2-3 turns later.

[LoBaron]

Yeah sorry Alfred, I have seen differences where there are none, see my post above. [:)]

[Alfred]

Grollub's post #19 is spot on; plus it provides significant additional info.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with prepreparing static defences. In AE, unlike real life, static prepared positions can only be built in bases/dot base, not out in the field. In the game whatever field fortifications are built are immediately lost when the unit vacates the position, they cannot be bequeathed to the relieving unit. Plus out in the field units do not equally share the field fortification level.

There is a penalty attached to delivering units in strat mode so there is no "free lunch" associated with rushing such units to a prepared static defence located in a base/dot base hex.

Alfred

[PT boat skipper]

Well, the only thing I was interested in was if the penalty, in this simulation, is too low. My feelling is that it should be a bit higher. Perhaps -90%.

/J

[PT boat skipper]

Below is the alternative with no allied strat-move units moving into hex. Nothing else changed.

/J



Ground combat at Jaffna (31,45)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 28725 troops, 393 guns, 90 vehicles, Assault Value = 626

Defending force 6676 troops, 66 guns, 254 vehicles, Assault Value = 280

Japanese adjusted assault: 482

Allied adjusted defense: 331

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 3)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
1538 casualties reported
Squads: 17 destroyed, 118 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 10 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 11 disabled
Guns lost 10 (2 destroyed, 8 disabled)
Vehicles lost 9 (2 destroyed, 7 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
94 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 9 disabled
Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 9 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Vehicles lost 16 (3 destroyed, 13 disabled)


Assaulting units:
24th Division
2nd Recon Regiment
25th Division
4th Ind.Mixed Regiment
Yokosuka 3rd SNLF
2nd Army
20th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
7th Air Defense AA Regiment
2nd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
7th Base Force
54th JNAF AF Unit
55th JNAF AF Unit

Defending units:
2/10th Armoured Regiment
2/8th Armoured Regiment
3/4 Ghurka Rifles Battalion
99th Indian Brigade
109th RN Base Force

[PT boat skipper]

If anyone is interested I did a late war experiment.

The only thing I changed between the two battles was deploying Japanese reinforcements in strat-mode. The allies invaded with three divisions and I reinforced with six divisions (simple rule = double the amount). As allied I invaded Kagoshima on Kyushu. Note: all reinforcements came by strat-mode RR from the Japanese main island Honshu, and not from Kyushu. I did actually forget to strat-mode a Japanese Corps HQ which I had planned to do.


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Sep 09, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Kagoshima (102,60)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 26834 troops, 413 guns, 577 vehicles, Assault Value = 781

Defending force 9602 troops, 129 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 198

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 4

Allied adjusted assault: 624

Japanese adjusted defense: 157

Allied assault odds: 3 to 1 (fort level 4)

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), preparation(-), morale(-)
experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
387 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 26 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
516 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 66 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 11 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Guns lost 12 (2 destroyed, 10 disabled)

Assaulting units:
7th Infantry Division
2nd Marine Division
27th Infantry Division
XXIV US Corps

Defending units:
156th Division
Kagoshima Fortress
26th JNAF AF Unit



And below is the case when the Japanese reinforce with strat-mode (all Japanese divisions have disruption 0 after the battle).



AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Sep 09, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Kagoshima (102,60)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 26834 troops, 413 guns, 577 vehicles, Assault Value = 781

Defending force 87594 troops, 759 guns, 42 vehicles, Assault Value = 2801

Allied adjusted assault: 218

Japanese adjusted defense: 1564

Allied assault odds: 1 to 7 (fort level 5)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), op mode(-), preparation(-) Note: op mode = strat mode
experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+), fatigue(-) Note: fatigue? I did not change anything.

Japanese ground losses:
292 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 28 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 8 (2 destroyed, 6 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
2833 casualties reported
Squads: 13 destroyed, 294 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 30 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 38 disabled
Guns lost 36 (1 destroyed, 35 disabled)
Vehicles lost 13 (2 destroyed, 11 disabled)


Assaulting units:
2nd Marine Division
7th Infantry Division
27th Infantry Division
XXIV US Corps

Defending units:
140th Division
52nd Division
73rd Division
3rd Guards Division
12th Division
81st Division
156th Division
Kagoshima Fortress
26th JNAF AF Unit

[Grollub]

Looks quite right [:)]

[Banzan]

I'm not sure why you use shock attacks instead of deliberated attacks. Its usefull if you have a major advantage in firepower or fight against weak units, but i wouldn't use it against better allied units. The firepower of most allied untis will skyrocket quite fast due upgrades and support units. Serveral early war units are quite well trained already and within one month their morale may keep up, too. Not everything is a poor burmeese or dutch squad. Taking additional fire may not be the best way to go.



For your late war test:
You may need to redo that serveral times before you get usefulll results, too much can go wrong (bad rolls).

[PT boat skipper]

I used shock attacks because (see above in my late war experiment) I had a clear advantage in numbers/firepower and wanted to capture the port/airfield asap before enemy reinforcements arrive.

No, I do not need to redo it since it clearly shows what I have be trying (poorly I admit) to argue above, namely that strat-mode movements means synchronized reinforcements that instantly bring valuable combat power to the fight. Yes, as has also been mentioned above, the combat power is considerable less than if the units would have been in combat mode, but - and this is the catch - I would rather use 1,000 adjusted AV on the beach bringing the enemy attack to a 1-2 rather than 2,000 adjusted AV in rear areas where it has zero effect on the battle. The experiment also shows that there is no extra vulnerability in moving strat-mode units forward - as long as the enemy get a 1-2 result (this is easy as a defender you do have 100% intelligence of the enemy numbers on the beach while the enemy can only guess how many troops you will be able to railroad in).

Furthermore, it also shows the interesting feature that not only are units railroaded in from far away, escaping all naval bombardments (day and/or night) as well as air attacks, those units are also transported from the railheads to the beach pillboxes in an instance. All well? Not in my book as a wargame designer.

I should also mention that I find naval bombardment seriously lacking in power.

What is my suggestion?

I would prefer two different defensive postures in one hex. In order to fully conquer a hex you first need to do 1) and then 2).

1) The beach (including port and airfield)
2) Hinterlands (the hex sides)

This will have the effect that as a defender I can choose what to defend with every unit in the hex. The hex (port/airfield) or the exits from the hex (excluding of course the hex sides from where the enemy enters). Defending the hex (including the beach) will mean that my units ordered to do so are much more vulnerable to naval bombardments than the present model. Defending the hex sides will mean that I may allow the enemy to get ashore and gain control of the airfield/port, but will still be in control of the hex sides, and therefore the exists, until the enemy defeats all the units present in the hex. I will also be much less vulnerable to naval bombardment (perhaps even less so than the present model).

And here is the catch, all units arriving during the turn to reinforce the defence should by default get the setting defending hinterlands (2). This is to model that it takes considerable time and effort to assemble units from the railheads and head to the beach. It should not happen in an instance (less than one turn) and therefore without any warning to the attacker.

I believe this may improve land combat considerable.

Atolls should of course only have one alternative (1).

/J

ORIGINAL: Banzan

I'm not sure why you use shock attacks instead of deliberated attacks. Its usefull if you have a major advantage in firepower or fight against weak units, but i wouldn't use it against better allied units. The firepower of most allied untis will skyrocket quite fast due upgrades and support units. Serveral early war units are quite well trained already and within one month their morale may keep up, too. Not everything is a poor burmeese or dutch squad. Taking additional fire may not be the best way to go.



For your late war test:
You may need to redo that serveral times before you get usefulll results, too much can go wrong (bad rolls).

[Banzan]

I think you jump too fast to a conclusion. Look at battles again.

Combat modifiers Battle 1:
Attacker: shock(+)
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), preparation(-), morale(-) experience(-)

Combat modifiers Battle 2:
Attacker: shock(+), fatigue(-)
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), op mode(-), preparation(-)experience(-)

Those battles started quite different. You can run a battle quite often and due RNG you'll see a lot of different results. Failed leader rolls can be quite destructive in WitPAE.

Your idea how to handle strat. moving may be better, but we have to live with what we got. Michaelm can't change the engine, only parameters of it. And i seriously doubt that's possible to do within this game engine.

[PT boat skipper]

Sure, I can redo the battle if you insist. I also added the Japanese Corps HQ I forgot last time:


AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Sep 09, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Kagoshima (102,60)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 26834 troops, 413 guns, 577 vehicles, Assault Value = 781

Defending force 9602 troops, 129 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 198

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 4

Allied adjusted assault: 624

Japanese adjusted defense: 157

Allied assault odds: 3 to 1 (fort level 4)

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), preparation(-), morale(-)
experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
387 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 26 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
516 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 66 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 11 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Guns lost 12 (2 destroyed, 10 disabled)

Assaulting units:
7th Infantry Division
2nd Marine Division
27th Infantry Division
XXIV US Corps

Defending units:
156th Division
Kagoshima Fortress
26th JNAF AF Unit




Below is reinforcement by strat-mode movement:

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Sep 09, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Kagoshima (102,60)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 26834 troops, 413 guns, 577 vehicles, Assault Value = 781

Defending force 88435 troops, 757 guns, 82 vehicles, Assault Value = 2793

Allied adjusted assault: 437

Japanese adjusted defense: 2581

Allied assault odds: 1 to 5 (fort level 5)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), op mode(-), preparation(-)
experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
335 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 32 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Allied ground losses:
3389 casualties reported
Squads: 20 destroyed, 388 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 53 disabled
Engineers: 7 destroyed, 48 disabled
Guns lost 39 (2 destroyed, 37 disabled)
Vehicles lost 16 (1 destroyed, 15 disabled)

Assaulting units:
2nd Marine Division
7th Infantry Division
27th Infantry Division
XXIV US Corps

Defending units:
140th Division
94th Division
73rd Division
3rd Guards Division
12th Division
81st Division
156th Division
57th Army
Kagoshima Fortress
26th JNAF AF Unit

[PT boat skipper]

Yes, and this reason is also the main reason why I generally prefer manual wargames. No "black box" problem.

/J

ORIGINAL: Banzan

Your idea how to handle strat. moving may be better, but we have to live with what we got. Michaelm can't change the engine, only parameters of it. And i seriously doubt that's possible to do within this game engine.

[LoBaron]

ORIGINAL: PT boat skipper
What is my suggestion?

I would prefer two different defensive postures in one hex. In order to fully conquer a hex you first need to do 1) and then 2).

1) The beach (including port and airfield)
2) Hinterlands (the hex sides)

This will have the effect that as a defender I can choose what to defend with every unit in the hex. [...]

Or, as an alternative to change-suggestions we will not get, you could simply adapt and not shock attack into an unknown opposition without preparing accordingly. By landing your troops you get the beach already (admittedly without your desired port and AF but thats a bit excessive anyway IMHO).

Noone says land combat is the most realistic part of WitP AE, but the implications of strat movement, base interconnections, and combat odds & firepower calculations, are obvious, and so such situations can be avoided.

In your case means: You simply do not land at a single beach on Ceylon without bringing enough firepower to defeat the enemy units on Ceylon.