Rise of the Sheep! JocMeister(A) vs. Obvert(J)

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Spidery

Question on rivercrossings.

My understanding is no shock attack if you have 1/3rd of the enemy AV in the hex that has crossed through that hexside and is still in the hex.

However, I have not had shock attacks when I expected them and had them when I did not so I may be misunderstanding some aspect of the rule.

Hmmm I thought no shock attack occurs is you have one third of the AV crossing already in the hex. The logic being that you need a force equal to one third of what is crossing in order to screen the crossing from enemy opposition. A force smaller than one third the size of the force crossing is too small to screen the crossing, thus the enemy can deploy to oppose it forcing a shock attack to cross. I may be wrong, but that's how I understand it.

[JocMeister]

Hans, that was how I understood it too.

But no shock attack was triggered despite 4300 AV crossing and only 300ish AV already in the hex. [&:]

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

Hans, that was how I understood it too.

But no shock attack was triggered despite 4300 AV crossing and only 300ish AV already in the hex. [&:]

I think this was the last patch change:

"50. Gameplay Change: Change to river assault – reversion to original rule - when crossing a river into a hex all units entering should shock attack in the turn they cross, unless 1/3 of the unmodified AV of the defenders has already crossed from that hex side in a previous turn."

So, it's hexside, not hex that controls. One could read it that "defenders" is the enemy AV which controls, not the attacker's. Which makes logical sense, but is very difficult to impossible to manage on the attacker's side of the interface.

And it's just the crossing units doing the shock, not the whole resulting stack in the target hex.

I don't know if the hexside data is perishable. IOW, if you cross a month from now with a second chunk does the game record the previous crossing forever?

A strange rule and hard to manage with the interface as it is. Good memory or good notes I guess.

[RogerJNeilson]

I sent in a Fletcher TFs with some DMS embedded to try and avoid the mines. I did avoid the mines but Erik had some CD guns at Saigon that ripped my poor DMS to shreds. Same problem as I have at Bataan. Mines and CD guns in combination. I don´t know how to counter this. Any ideas?

I recently found that YMS do a good job but are the equivalent of Kamikazes. They swept a large number of mines but then were vaporised by battery fire. On the other hand they were only 1 point per ship if one is being heartless.....

Roger

[poodlebrain]

I think the rule makes perfect sense. Think of an actual river crossing. The attacker sends units across to seize a bridgehead. Those units make an assault crossing, and attempt to secure the bridgehead. If the bridgehead is sufficiently large the follow-up forces can cross unopposed. The one necessity is that the follow-up forces cross the river at the same location as the assault units.

In game terms you can't carve out bridgehead territory within the crossing hex. So using attacker to defender strength ratio provides a reasonable approximation of the attacker's ability to control the required territory. And using hexsides provides a further limitation on the territory considered secured by the assault force into which the follow-up forces can land unopposed.

The rules add a sense of realism to river crossings as they make it a race to reinforce once a bridgehead is achieved. The attacker must take advantage of the bridgehead by reinforcing and breaking out (gaining control of the entire hex) before the defender reduces the bridgehead. The defender can reduce the bridgehead either by inflicting combat losses, in hopes of eliminating the bridgehead, or simply squeezing the amount of territory deemed secured by changing the ratio of attacker to defender strength.

[Crackaces]

Just a thought on strategy as this game moves forward. One thing to emphasize is that this is a game and not a simulation. Thus in considering strategy the constraints of the game rather than real life or an interpretation of history might be paramount to success.

Thus with the Kamikaze situation and the IJ's over abundance of airframes at this point in the game .. I might suggest for discussion an overland seizure of very concentrated VP's might be a good strategy. Your blitzkrieg in Southeast Asia opens a portal into Southern China. Hong Kong is very doable using forces you have in Southeast Asia. I might suggest the real crux of focusing on the overland route toward enough VP's to win is reducing the risk of sea based platforms to attack (the denominator in this equation) while stressing the IJ's LCU's and more importantly supply. It seems to me at this point in the game - the IJ has a choice between using supplies in the home islands and supplying the forces defending the outer fronts. The latter requires secure sea lanes which the Allies can interdict.

Any thoughts?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: poodlebrain

I think the rule makes perfect sense. Think of an actual river crossing. The attacker sends units across to seize a bridgehead. Those units make an assault crossing, and attempt to secure the bridgehead. If the bridgehead is sufficiently large the follow-up forces can cross unopposed. The one necessity is that the follow-up forces cross the river at the same location as the assault units.

In game terms you can't carve out bridgehead territory within the crossing hex. So using attacker to defender strength ratio provides a reasonable approximation of the attacker's ability to control the required territory. And using hexsides provides a further limitation on the territory considered secured by the assault force into which the follow-up forces can land unopposed.

The rules add a sense of realism to river crossings as they make it a race to reinforce once a bridgehead is achieved. The attacker must take advantage of the bridgehead by reinforcing and breaking out (gaining control of the entire hex) before the defender reduces the bridgehead. The defender can reduce the bridgehead either by inflicting combat losses, in hopes of eliminating the bridgehead, or simply squeezing the amount of territory deemed secured by changing the ratio of attacker to defender strength.

I didn't say the rule doesn't make sense. I said it was strange.

Perhaps bad wording on my part. I mean the rule is strange in that it is incredibly difficult to manage from the attacker's side, as he doesn't know the AV in the target hex and has no way in the game to get this intel outside attacking with what he already has in the hex, which is not enough else he wouldn't be hurrying reinforcements across the river. There's also no interface way to determine which hexsides are made "safe" and which are not, or how long the hexside remains activated. In my own PBEM game I've had a situation where I came from two different directions for the same target hex and got hit by the rule twice because of hexsides. They don't change color when you've satisfied the rule, or anything similar. You just have to remember.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I think this was the last patch change:

"50. Gameplay Change: Change to river assault – reversion to original rule - when crossing a river into a hex all units entering should shock attack in the turn they cross, unless 1/3 of the unmodified AV of the defenders has already crossed from that hex side in a previous turn."

So, it's hexside, not hex that controls. One could read it that "defenders" is the enemy AV which controls, not the attacker's. Which makes logical sense, but is very difficult to impossible to manage on the attacker's side of the interface.

And it's just the crossing units doing the shock, not the whole resulting stack in the target hex.

I don't know if the hexside data is perishable. IOW, if you cross a month from now with a second chunk does the game record the previous crossing forever?

A strange rule and hard to manage with the interface as it is. Good memory or good notes I guess.

Thanks for clearing that up. Explains why the shock attack didn´t happen! [:)]

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
I recently found that YMS do a good job but are the equivalent of Kamikazes. They swept a large number of mines but then were vaporised by battery fire. On the other hand they were only 1 point per ship if one is being heartless.....

Roger

You know what. Thats actually not a bad idea. I have a gazillion (almost) YMS sitting at Cotabato without something to do... [:'(]

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Crackaces

Thus with the Kamikaze situation and the IJ's over abundance of airframes at this point in the game .. I might suggest for discussion an overland seizure of very concentrated VP's might be a good strategy. Your blitzkrieg in Southeast Asia opens a portal into Southern China. Hong Kong is very doable using forces you have in Southeast Asia. I might suggest the real crux of focusing on the overland route toward enough VP's to win is reducing the risk of sea based platforms to attack (the denominator in this equation) while stressing the IJ's LCU's and more importantly supply. It seems to me at this point in the game - the IJ has a choice between using supplies in the home islands and supplying the forces defending the outer fronts. The latter requires secure sea lanes which the Allies can interdict.

Any thoughts?

I´m going straight for China after Vinh is secured. Once Thailand is mopped up I hope to have 12-15k AV going for the south China coast and Hong Kong. [:)]

Lots of road and lots of clear hexes. I feel pretty confident I can inflict big casualties. Eriks Chinese armies have been dormant for 3 years now not draining much supply. If you are right and supply is his achilles heel at this point I hope it will put a tremendous strain on his supply. I´m also prepping a lot of AV to open a second front in China.

I´m not sure how many ID Erik has available in China right now. He probably bought a lot of them out since 42. Going to check through Intel Monkey when I find the time. But perhaps 10-12 divisions is reasonable to expect? I´m going to land some of the US Tank BTLs (10 or so) as soon as I get the chance.

The main goal is mainly just to inflict as much damage as possible to any Japanese troops encountered while I drive on to HK. If an opportunity to get the Chinese some supply I will of course grab it too.

China looks like a plate full of opportunities right now. I´ll just drive east and see what shows up. [:)]

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: JocMeister

ORIGINAL: Spidery

Question on rivercrossings.

My understanding is no shock attack if you have 1/3rd of the enemy AV in the hex that has crossed through that hexside and is still in the hex.

However, I have not had shock attacks when I expected them and had them when I did not so I may be misunderstanding some aspect of the rule.

Ah, so its the own and enemy AV already in the hex that decides shock attack or not? And it has nothing to do with the actual AV that is crossing crossing?

At least in this case it would seem to be correct. We have about the same AV in the hex I´m crossing into.

Its the current (not disabled, etc.) in-hex own AV that already crossed the hex side in question compared to enemy AV.

[Crackaces]

If you are right and supply is his achilles heel at this point I hope it will put a tremendous strain on his supply

What I noticed in my last game was (-) supply once I seized Bangkok and isolated Southeast Asia from resupply by sea in my combat reports in my fights in the Southeast Asia area. Simply .. There is not enough LI in Sooutheast Asia to supply any resistance and once isolated the area rapidly crumbled until auto victory ....

[JocMeister]

Heh, funny that you mention the (-) supply. I have actually started getting those from time to time lately in Thailand. [:)]

[JocMeister]

[font="Verdana"]16th January -45[/font]
______________________________________________________________________________

For the second day in row the only action is in and around the South China Sea.

------------------------
Near Vinh
------------------------
Our troops kick in the door to Vinh!

Ground combat at 64,60 (near Vinh)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 116528 troops, 2042 guns, 1610 vehicles, Assault Value = 4887

Defending force 11399 troops, 49 guns, 178 vehicles, Assault Value = 405

Allied adjusted assault: 3400 [:)]

Japanese adjusted defense: 191

Allied assault odds: 17 to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), disruption(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
3943 casualties reported
Squads: 221 destroyed [X(], 32 disabled
Non Combat: 140 destroyed, 104 disabled
Engineers: 18 destroyed, 4 disabled
Guns lost 20 (16 destroyed, 4 disabled)
Vehicles lost 167 (143 destroyed, 24 disabled)
Units retreated 4
Units destroyed 1

Allied ground losses:
592 casualties reported
Squads: 10 destroyed, 151 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 17 disabled
Engineers: 3 destroyed, 70 disabled
Vehicles lost 7 (1 destroyed, 6 disabled)

Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
18th British Division
14th Indian Division
XXXIII Corps Engineer Battalion
26th Indian Division
50th Tank Brigade
255th Indian Tank Brigade
18th Cavalry Regiment
17th Motorised Division
IV Corps Engineer Battalion
41st Infantry Division
36th British Division
2nd British Division
6th Australian Division
254th Armoured Brigade
XV Corps Engineer Battalion
209th Combat Engineer Battalion
I Aus Corps Engineer Battalion
9th Australian Division
48th Light AA Regiment
III Indian Corps
30th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
Southeast Asia
2/11th Field Regiment
1st Indian Medium Regiment
85th Medium Regiment
XV Indian Corps
2/13th Field Regiment
2/9th Field Regiment
25th Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
14th Army
31st Indian Mountain Gun Regiment

Defending units:
13th Ind.Infantry Brigade
12th Tank Regiment
65th Brigade
27th Electric Engineer Regiment
176th JAAF AF Bn /3

Onwards to Vinh! [&o]

------------------------
Thailand
------------------------
I try something I havn´t done in a while. A LRCAP/Sweep combo. We did amazingly well. I have to analyze this closer and see what happened.

Morning Air attack on Cam Ranh Bay , at 64,72

Weather in hex: Severe storms

Raid detected at 35 NM, estimated altitude 35,000 feet.
Estimated time to target is 13 minutes

Japanese aircraft
A7M2 Sam x 18
Ki-84r Frank x 19
Ki-100-I Tony x 16
Ki-102a Randy x 9
Ki-102b Randy x 27

Allied aircraft
F4U-1D Corsair x 111 [:D]

Japanese aircraft losses
A7M2 Sam: 4 destroyed
Ki-84r Frank: 1 destroyed
Ki-100-I Tony: 2 destroyed
Ki-102a Randy: 1 destroyed
Ki-102b Randy: 3 destroyed

Allied aircraft losses
F4U-1D Corsair: 1 destroyed

Aircraft Attacking:
21 x F4U-1D Corsair sweeping at 32000 feet

Strangely enough despite this I had 12 Corsairs listed as killed in A2A. I bet a good amount of money that some of them "strayed" somewhere doing some invincible combat. Probably over Saigon. Wouldn´t surprise me as I had LRCAP override every possible setting you give them.

------------------------
Luzon
------------------------
Big day tomorrow as the 3rd attack on Manila is ordered. If I can lower the forts to 4 and repeat the previous excellent result I think Manila will fall before January is up. Fingers crossed everyone!

First reinforcement arrive on Luzon. 4th Marine division and the 31st ID (one of the highest EXP US IDs) get ready to join the fray in a couple of days. The 77th ID will join in a couple of days together with a Engineer RGT (250 AV). The 77th actually IS the highest EXP US ID with 80 EXP.

------------------------
Strat bombing
------------------------
Tomorrow the biggest raid over the HI so far takes off. Almost 200 B29s will strike the empire. I hope for good weather. I´m willing to take high losses as long as I get some results to show for it! Last two raids have not caused a single VP point of damage. Show me some results now!

------------------------
DEI
------------------------
We are making good progress here and are starting to fan out on the Celebes. Still unopposed everywhere. [:)]

[Crackaces]

Defender: terrain(+), disruption(-), supply(-)
Attacker:

Along with supply problems .... If they IJ keep units out of a base hex for very long in the Malaria areas ... squads start becoming disabled .. disabled squads die .. and then the Allied attacks take disabled squads into destroyed squads .. The defense has to prepare for what is coming . the attacker chooses their path .. thus the Allies can keep that time away from a base hex to a minimum ... and they have the supplies to reverse that disablement ... At least in my games the IJ do not at this point ...

[JocMeister]

Good info Crackaces. [:)]

I have attacked the stack previous turn too which probably added to the modifiers too. Nonetheless I prefer to destroy squads instead of disabling them! [&o]

[ny59giants]

Disabled squads become destroyed, I think, once a LCU has over 50% disabled squads if they suffer another defeat in combat.

[JocMeister]

Btw, for you who actually pay attention ([:D]) I have now watched the replay with the LRCAP/SWEEP combo. I still don´t know what happened really but the Corsairs just mauled everything in the air. Flattened everything but the Franks that mostly didn´t take part in the battle at all. I tried replicating it in sandbox but never got as good results. But it does seem using LRCAP lessens losses on BOTH sides quite dramatically. Not really sure why yet and it didn´t earlier.

I´m going to keep fiddling with this until I can replicate the results. Might just have been an extraordinary roll of the dice.

[JocMeister]

[font="Verdana"]17th January -45[/font]
______________________________________________________________________________

This won´t go down as one of the better turns...could have been worse though.

------------------------
Manilagrad
------------------------
Lets start with the bad news. This time things didn´t go our way. No forts lowered which means this was a wasted attack. Some of the US IDs are starting to look pretty beat up. [:(] This makes a free Manila before January is up an impossibility. New timeline is mid February.

Ground combat at Manila (79,77)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 126086 troops, 2453 guns, 5293 vehicles, Assault Value = 5038

Defending force 122229 troops, 1430 guns, 1586 vehicles, Assault Value = 3291

Allied adjusted assault: 1635

Japanese adjusted defense: 18457

Allied assault odds: 1 to 11 (fort level 5)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), leaders(+)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
6087 casualties reported
Squads: 170 destroyed, 168 disabled
Non Combat: 16 destroyed, 147 disabled
Engineers: 4 destroyed, 135 disabled
Guns lost 222 (23 destroyed, 199 disabled)
Vehicles lost 188 (43 destroyed, 145 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
5724 casualties reported
Squads: 42 destroyed, 263 disabled
Non Combat: 61 destroyed, 238 disabled
Engineers: 21 destroyed, 109 disabled
Guns lost 154 (18 destroyed, 136 disabled)
Vehicles lost 174 (27 destroyed, 147 disabled)
Units destroyed 1 [X(]

At first I couldn´t understand it. Then I looked at the AV. Someone has reinforced...

Defending units:
107th Division

Might be some other units thrown in there as well. Last bombardment showed 2900 AV. I´ve decided to make this a Japanese Manilagrad (sorry for stealing your thing princep! [;)]) I´m going to have to fight those units sooner or later anyway. I would have prefered not doing it in a urban hex with level 5 forts though but...ah well.

We are going to reinforce. Heavily. The US Divisions can´t handle the situation and needs to be pulled out and rest. So lets get the USMC then. All of them. If Erik wants to pile on we will pile on.

Again my armor units are virtually untouched. They will need 2-3 days of rest and then they are good to go again. I´m thinking about doing a pure armor attack then. Just backed up by arty while the engineers and IDs rest. It has worked well on other places. But not on this scale. What do you think? Worth a shot [&:]


------------------------
Stratbombing
------------------------
Of course there were Thunderstorms over the HI and Manila I did get some hits. Did had some nice consequences though. The storms shielded my B29s and only 4(!) were lost over the HI and 6 over Manila. This while we shot down 30 NFs. Its bonkers because but I´ll take it at this point! [:)]

------------------------
Kudat
------------------------
Kudat on the NW tip of Borneo was finally secured. Took long enough.

Ground combat at Kudat (69,86)

Allied Deliberate attack

Attacking force 9398 troops, 164 guns, 169 vehicles, Assault Value = 362

Defending force 3929 troops, 32 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 69

Allied adjusted assault: 162

Japanese adjusted defense: 37

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

Allied forces CAPTURE Kudat !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), disruption(-), fatigue(-)
experience(-)
Attacker: 6600]fatigue(-)[/color]

Japanese ground losses:
782 casualties reported
Squads: 50 destroyed, 2 disabled
Non Combat: 48 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 10 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 8 (7 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Units retreated 2

Allied ground losses:
260 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 38 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Guns lost 5 (1 destroyed, 4 disabled)

Defeated Japanese Units Retreating!

Assaulting units:
3rd Motor Brigade
24th (Sep) Infantry Regiment
22nd Australian Brigade

Defending units:
63rd Infantry Brigade
172nd JAAF AF Bn

[Bullwinkle58]

How is he getting a (+) on Leaders at this point? Do you have PPs for an overhaul? They are not trivial on fortified assaults.

[ny59giants]

Sorry Jocke, but you are not channeling your inner MacArthur. [:-][:-] You have superior mobility at this time at sea, so use it. Go around and land at the northern bases of Luzon (Aparri, Laoag, and/or Vigan). Bring ALL your carriers as I would expect massive kamikazes to come your way. You may need to close down or at least heavily damage an AF like Takao with B-29s.