House rules for impregnable Allied armour

[crsutton]

Well, the point is that even though there are not enough tank casualties, the tanks did not win and at that rate would never move the Japanese defender out of the hex unless supported.

Yes you would expect the occasional Sherman to throw a track or run over a mine but this is the way it is and the Allies have it just as bad in 1942 with even the most craptacular Japanese tankettes running roughshod over virtually any Allied unit.

You as the Japanese player are going to suffer at the hands of Allied tanks and are going to need to be creative in stopping them. Good terrain, high quality troops mixed with AT units and light tanks will help. But basically in all but the best conditions and considering the scope of Allied air power and the virtually lack of any inherent AT values, Japanese infantry is going to melt away in the face of strong Allied tank units. Just be thankful that he does not have complete armored divisions.

[RogerJNeilson]

[/quote]

I don't really know whats going on here but taking advantage of a superior knowledge of game mechanics is in my opinion something that really isn't okay. If that is in fact something that is happening here, impossible to tell.

Being a relative newbie to the game, I try and learn as much about it as I can. :-/
[/quote]

The only knowledge I have about the game mechanics is the same as anyone else, there comes a point where the devs did not want us to know - and I'm the same as anyone else on that. I have no 'special knowledge'.

I know that any attack cannot be predicted in terms of the AV and adjusted AV and the odds.... but that having more and better troops and a better situation will ON AVERAGE lead to a good result. I also know that making sure your enemy is tired, demoralised, disorganised, out of supply, subject to constant air attack is likely to make them more brittle and less dangerous.

Its pretty much impossible to predict the end odds in any combat. Playing AE is an art not a science.

In the fighting at Cam Ranh Bay I cannot ever see the forces I have there taking it - well maybe in a month or so I could eliminate every defender using the Shermans and lack of supply.

BUT its July 1944 and the Allies are not gifted with a luxurious amount of time...

Given I'm not going to take the place (did I even say I needed it?) I am a little perplexed at the perceived issue here.

Its only worth - in net terms 30 VPs, ok its got a decent port but so has Saigon and I have that already. It has a Lvl 4 airfield - pretty irrelevant as I dominate the airspace over Vietnam. Its got a rag bag of enemy units there, with more assorted remnants on the way so its a last foothold in the area, but its effectively just a self running POW camp.

The issue, as I understand it, is that my long term opponent thinks there should be some armor casualties in these engagements - he may be right, but that's the issue for discussion. I have an alternative viewpoint that says a deliberate attack - as opposed to a shock attack - is a slow and methodical application of force multipliers. If I were to go for a shock attack I'd expect a lot of close quarters activity that would end up with lots of my armour needing repair or replacement.

Where there are big and important battles I'm employing far greater leverage in terms of AV and smashing the defences as I need to.

I understand my opponent's frustration - I have had two years of it being dished out to me - but I don't see how another house rule could be applied that made actual historical sense.

My troops are well supplied and rather than rushing in and getting nasty things done to them they are standing off and 'keeping the Jap's heads down'.

Looking from other periods, think Hastings, think Agincourt, think of any combat where one side has the superiority of range and supply....

If someone can come up with a workable house rule that makes sense I'm happy to add it to the long list of other ones I have added in during this game....

Roger

[RogerJNeilson]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
I understand the combat and I know what I am doing here.... maybe I am not prepared to say what I am doing though....

I think I know what's up, but in deference to your wishes due to this being a PBEM game I'll refrain from stating my belief unless you say it's ok to talk about it first.

Jim

Feel free to comment Jim, but I might not comment on what you say.....

Roger

[RogerJNeilson]

ORIGINAL: crsutton

Well, the point is that even though there are not enough tank casualties, the tanks did not win and at that rate would never move the Japanese defender out of the hex unless supported.

Yes you would expect the occasional Sherman to throw a track or run over a mine but this is the way it is and the Allies have it just as bad in 1942 with even the most craptacular Japanese tankettes running roughshod over virtually any Allied unit.

You as the Japanese player are going to suffer at the hands of Allied tanks and are going to need to be creative in stopping them. Good terrain, high quality troops mixed with AT units and light tanks will help. But basically in all but the best conditions and considering the scope of Allied air power and the virtually lack of any inherent AT values, Japanese infantry is going to melt away in the face of strong Allied tank units. Just be thankful that he does not have complete armored divisions.

Indeed, and if the Allies hit spots where you haven't got the right troops, or the right defences, or the right terrain then you are in trouble..... this is Churchill's 'soft underbelly' reality... he may have got it wrong in Italy and in the Dardanelles, but this time he got it right.

Roger

[RogerJNeilson]

ORIGINAL: AE Veteran

http://usacac.army.mil/cac2/cgsc/carl/w ... mber34.pdf

Lots of nasty anti tanks stuff not modelled at all in the game - why am I bothering?

Now that is a fascinating read, and I take from it that there should be some losses, and that unsupported tanks should not expect to take a position without significant losses. I also take from it a sense that the Japanese were in a right mess over how to deal with Allied armour, and that much of their thinking was improvisation where they could.

Accepting the game mechanics may not be quite right I cannot see a 'house rule' that could be used, as I have already indicated in emails, its not possible to say attacks can only be conducted with a certain level of odds - as the odds are only known after the event.

So short of the Allies not attacking with tanks I'm at a loss what could be done here.

Cam Ranh is a sideshow anyway in my opinion. Its not likely to be repeated much, if at all.

On the other hand large mobile forces will be knocking on lots of doors in the next month or so, suitable support in place and ready to eliminate positions where there is not the supply, fortification or will to resist.

I don't think this is a major - or even a minor issue. As has been recently demonstrated the Allied forces once ashore can dominate the battlefield in 1944.

Roger

[JocMeister]

This doesn´t need to be HRed. [8|] Just read crsuttons post and follow his excellent suggestions. Even massed Allied tank attacks can be thwarted if you do it correctly.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

I don't really know whats going on here but taking advantage of a superior knowledge of game mechanics is in my opinion something that really isn't okay. If that is in fact something that is happening here, impossible to tell.

Being a relative newbie to the game, I try and learn as much about it as I can. :-/
[/quote]

The only knowledge I have about the game mechanics is the same as anyone else, there comes a point where the devs did not want us to know - and I'm the same as anyone else on that. I have no 'special knowledge'.

I know that any attack cannot be predicted in terms of the AV and adjusted AV and the odds.... but that having more and better troops and a better situation will ON AVERAGE lead to a good result. I also know that making sure your enemy is tired, demoralised, disorganised, out of supply, subject to constant air attack is likely to make them more brittle and less dangerous.

Its pretty much impossible to predict the end odds in any combat. Playing AE is an art not a science.

In the fighting at Cam Ranh Bay I cannot ever see the forces I have there taking it - well maybe in a month or so I could eliminate every defender using the Shermans and lack of supply.

BUT its July 1944 and the Allies are not gifted with a luxurious amount of time...

Given I'm not going to take the place (did I even say I needed it?) I am a little perplexed at the perceived issue here.

Its only worth - in net terms 30 VPs, ok its got a decent port but so has Saigon and I have that already. It has a Lvl 4 airfield - pretty irrelevant as I dominate the airspace over Vietnam. Its got a rag bag of enemy units there, with more assorted remnants on the way so its a last foothold in the area, but its effectively just a self running POW camp.

The issue, as I understand it, is that my long term opponent thinks there should be some armor casualties in these engagements - he may be right, but that's the issue for discussion. I have an alternative viewpoint that says a deliberate attack - as opposed to a shock attack - is a slow and methodical application of force multipliers. If I were to go for a shock attack I'd expect a lot of close quarters activity that would end up with lots of my armour needing repair or replacement.

Where there are big and important battles I'm employing far greater leverage in terms of AV and smashing the defences as I need to.

I understand my opponent's frustration - I have had two years of it being dished out to me - but I don't see how another house rule could be applied that made actual historical sense.

My troops are well supplied and rather than rushing in and getting nasty things done to them they are standing off and 'keeping the Jap's heads down'.

Looking from other periods, think Hastings, think Agincourt, think of any combat where one side has the superiority of range and supply....

If someone can come up with a workable house rule that makes sense I'm happy to add it to the long list of other ones I have added in during this game....

Roger[/quote]


Roger,

I've quoted only this post because it covers the ground of several other posts.

Stick to your guns. There is absolutely no ground for a House Rule nor is the game deficient nor have you done anything questionable.

1. One wonders why it has taken your opponent 2 and a half game years to discover the power of tanks. Was it only a sin of omission that he never noticed it and volunteered to keep it in check when it favoured the Japanese?

2. AE is not a tactical, squad level game. By necessity it involves abstraction. Why just increase micromanagement in this area which would just so happen to greatly assist the Japanese side now, and not elsewhere. Where would the intellectual honesty lie? Let's avoid all abstraction and let's see if anyone could get to January 1942 in less than 10 years of real time play, at 40 hours per week.

3. Bringing elements of other games into the debate is an irrelevancy. He should play those games instead of AE if they are so much more perfect and accurate.

4. Those tactical elements he claims to be missing in AE have already been factored in to the anit-soft/hard ratings of the individual devices. All this data is readily available in game and strong players base their strategy and tactics on the game data, not on some fantasy assumptions brought in from some external hearsay position.

5. The Allied player is doing absolutely nothing which is gamey. There is no exploitation of the game engine. It is merely the proper application of standard real world military principles to the game situation.

6. No workable HR could ever be devised for this situation nor would it ever be desirable. Rather than seeking one, and in the process giving the strong impression that the Japanese player is crying to mummy, the Japanese player should just employ the sound military tactics, which are available in the game, to counter the Allied tactics. That is what a strong Japanese player would do.


As crsutton has pointed out, the Japanese are easily holding this position. They are suffering very few casualties. Contrary to the thread title, Allied armour is not impregnable. Casualties can be inflicted upon Allied armour. It just requires a player who knows how to play the game, taking advantage of combined arms capabilities.

Alfred

[obvert]

+1

Well said.

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3
Feel free to comment Jim, but I might not comment on what you say.....

Thanks Roger,

First thing that popped into my mind when reading this thread was the possible use of reserve (no pursuit) as a setting for the tanks. This would keep them back from damaging artillery fire early in the combat resolution, but if the units are very well lead with great leaders they’d more than likely still enter the battle at some point and do their damage taking little or no damage themselves in return due to the fact they enter the fight late during the combat resolution.

I’ve never tried a deliberate attack with everyone set to reserve status before so I’m not 100% sure that’s what’s going on here, but I use reserve status liberally with all my armor and see good results with it and take far fewer casualties with them than I used to take when I had them set to defend.

The danger of course is that if everyone is set to reserve, no one has defend orders and they would lose a fight if attacked by default. But if they are all in reserve and attack I’m thinking perhaps the fight isn’t auto-lost as long as someone makes their reserve check die roll. But I could be wrong.

Jim

Edit Oops never mind, just went in and checked the game, the reserve status is not where I thought it was (thought it was in the same area defend/move/etc is), so it isn’t even possible to attack if everyone is in reserve mode. Someone needs to initiate the deliberate attack. That’s what happens when you are away from the game for any length, you forget tons of little details and confusion reigns.

[Alfred]

Units in reserve do not participate in contact.  A unit in reserve on the attacking side gains the benefit of hot pursuit if the defender is forced to retreat.
 
If the unit is in reserve on the defending side, it neither suffers casualties from enemy bombardment (with one caveat) nor does it contribute to the attack.  The caveat is that on the defensive, if the attacker is on the verge of getting a 2:1 odds result, there is a die roll to see if the unit in reserve is activated and then it participates as normal on the defence.
 
Alfred

[RogerJNeilson]

Nothing as cunning Jim.

5th USMC has had orders set to deliberate attack, the 8th KGV are set to Reserve/Pursuit.

So my opponent's force in Cam Ranh Bay has choices....

1. Sit and take the fire from a distance, gradual sapping of morale and supplies and increasing disruption....
2. Attack me - gets to close quarters with all manner of improvised weapons like moltovs, but comes out of fortifications and faces machine guns etc
3. Bugs out and heads into the jungle - or to Dalat - inland base where one of his units has just marched from - either way unless he times it exquisitely I will end up taking the base as his AV diminishes and my 8th KGV in pursuit hacks the routed forces apart.

As Dalat is cut off anyway and has no sea connection it would seem better to be at Cam Ranh, and hope the odd 'invisible barge' (as a sideline how do you kill invisible barges?) brings in supplies or evacuates cadres.

Either way they are in terminal decline.... and very much a written off part of the front for me now - no time pressure on its 'liberation'.

Roger

[Alfred]

Fighters at 100' on naval attack.  Otherwise fighter bombers will pick up the invisible barges.
 
Alfred

[obvert]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Units in reserve do not participate in contact.  A unit in reserve on the attacking side gains the benefit of hot pursuit if the defender is forced to retreat.

If the unit is in reserve on the defending side, it neither suffers casualties from enemy bombardment (with one caveat) nor does it contribute to the attack.  The caveat is that on the defensive, if the attacker is on the verge of getting a 2:1 odds result, there is a die roll to see if the unit in reserve is activated and then it participates as normal on the defence.

Alfred

However, if reserve units take part in combat they do it in move mode, so at reduced effectiveness.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: obvert

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Units in reserve do not participate in contact.  A unit in reserve on the attacking side gains the benefit of hot pursuit if the defender is forced to retreat.

If the unit is in reserve on the defending side, it neither suffers casualties from enemy bombardment (with one caveat) nor does it contribute to the attack.  The caveat is that on the defensive, if the attacker is on the verge of getting a 2:1 odds result, there is a die roll to see if the unit in reserve is activated and then it participates as normal on the defence.

Alfred

However, if reserve units take part in combat they do it in move mode, so at reduced effectiveness.

I believe this piece of the mode is not widely known. Good reminder.

[Czert]

can you post screenshot from booth sides of units involved to get clear picture ? of course, unless you find it confidental.

[RogerJNeilson]

8th KGV

[RogerJNeilson]

5thUSMC

[Yaab]

How come the Japs cannot destroy Stuart tanks? Have the defenders lost their field artillery pieces?

[Lecivius]

I'm gonna agree with Alfred here, and therefore with Roger as well. I see nothing wrong in any of this, and everything as expected.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: Yaab

How come the Japs cannot destroy Stuart tanks? Have the defenders lost their field artillery pieces?

They destroy plenty in my PBM, so the defender is just in a poor position here. No HR is appropriate.