Snowballing through defence with stacking limits

[GetAssista]

What is the snowball - when first layer of defence is broken retreating troops overstack next hex of defence, increasing disruption and bombing effects, burning supply and generally making life easier for the attacker. In fact easier to the point of defender not being able to hold prepared positions in 3x terrain long enough to let shattered troops pass by deeper into the lines. So next retreat happens in a couple days and snowballing gathers momentum.

In the light of some AARs with stacking limits and China trampled through snowball effect, I wonder if something can be done by defending side?

Avoid overstacking? This means roughly 2x less defending troops holding the line so that eventual retreat be accomodated in the next layer w/o penalties. So attacker will have 2x numerical advantage from start, can be pretty tough for Chinese. No layered defence is also no good.

Manage retreat path? Is it at all possible? Manual states that retreat happens along valid supply path towards the base. However which base in particular seems random if there are several accesible. I've seen occurences when different LCUs retreat in opposite directions after the same battle, and supply paths were definitely different (one retreat into 41 value if toggled by key "5", another into 25 value), so not the most efficient path was chosen sometimes.

Wait patiently until attacking troops are battered enough? Might run out of real estate. A recent example had 3 hexes of 3x terrain pushed through nicely including the river crossing.

Wait patiently until you can reciprocate in 1944? AFBs are used to it but still [:)]

Your thoughts appreciated

[btd64]

I believe it depends on the supply requirements of the unit plus other things. Alfred i'm sure has a detailed explaination as to what is involved. Try using the search function. Sometimes it works....GP

[Lokasenna]

My solution is to know where your troops will retreat (in China that's almost always backwards along some road or other), and don't have a bunch more troops there waiting to be overstacked by your broken retreaters.

[Shark7]

Also if you are playing Allies trying to defend China, you really want to get your defensive stacks into heavy forest hexes where they can hold out indefinitely. They are very hard to dislodge from those forest hexes.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Also if you are playing Allies trying to defend China, you really want to get your defensive stacks into heavy forest hexes where they can hold out indefinitely. They are very hard to dislodge from those forest hexes.

This advice only holds true if you have supply in China. My experience now shows me the the Japanese player should invade and at least hold India around Calcutta. China will get virtually no supply and eventually lose all supply centers. I have had zero supply for my troops in China for about six months. It is not the wooded terrain it is the last ditch terrain in the mountains around Kumming where snowballing works the best with low stacking limits, zero supply, Chinese units with up to 1/2 disrupted units, and with Japanese using massive ground bombing attack before an assault, I have seen snowballing work to perfection. Stacking limits are a total fail in China. They are not so bad elsewhere. To top it off every then dead Chinese unit goes into surrounded Chunking were massive over-stacking sucks all supply out of them. Even with no stacking limits China is hard to hold vs a skilled Japanese player. With stacking limits, there is not the remotest possibility.

[Shark7]

Of course the stacking limits were put into place because the stacks had gotten out of hand. Seems the fix may be just as bad as the initial problem from what you describe.

To solve it, perhaps a system that excludes either the retreated troops or the non-retreated troops on the first attack? I think I understand the problem...that is if a IJA attack succeeds then is immediately followed by a move to where the chinese troops retreated, then the subsequent defense is seriously hampered by all those 'broken' chinese units that offer no military value? I'd almost have to call that gamey myself. It may be working as intended, but puts the Allied player at a severe disadvantage.

House rule perhaps? X amount of turns before troops that just conquered a base can 'pursue' the retreated units? I'd agree to that myself, game needs to be fun for both players.

[Lowpe]

ORIGINAL: crsutton
This advice only holds true if you have supply in China. My experience now shows me the the Japanese player should invade and at least hold India around Calcutta.

I agree here...I think if the Allies control Ledo and form a massive air lift China can be held much longer. This is the Mr. Kane strategy I have harped on other threads.

I guess an answer might be to put in only 1/2 or so of the stacking limit on defense. That way a route will not overstack the next hex with horrible results. So 1/2 the stacking limit in x3 terrain and forts...Chinese forces simply lack the low manpower force multipliers that Japan can bring to the party.

I think the OP was writing about me moving up the Ankang road versus Jocke. But in truth, I was held at the original entry hex for a long time and had to cycle many divisions in and out before the snowball was started. Plus, I had to allocate a lot of planes to that spot. Now Jocke has 3x the stacking limit at Ankang and that has to hurt really badly especially since most of it is battered troops trying to retreat. And it probably hurts the supply the most...and supply is something you don't want to waste in China.

[Chijohnaok2]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Of course the stacking limits were put into place because the stacks had gotten out of hand. Seems the fix may be just as bad as the initial problem from what you describe.

To solve it, perhaps a system that excludes either the retreated troops or the non-retreated troops on the first attack? I think I understand the problem...that is if a IJA attack succeeds then is immediately followed by a move to where the chinese troops retreated, then the subsequent defense is seriously hampered by all those 'broken' chinese units that offer no military value? I'd almost have to call that gamey myself. It may be working as intended, but puts the Allied player at a severe disadvantage.

House rule perhaps? X amount of turns before troops that just conquered a base can 'pursue' the retreated units? I'd agree to that myself, game needs to be fun for both players.

then the subsequent defense is seriously hampered by all those 'broken' chinese units that offer no military value? I'd almost have to call that gamey myself. It may be working as intended, but puts the Allied player at a severe disadvantage.

I'm not sure that I would call it "gamey".
Having troops from the front retreating though a second "fallback" line set up behind them can be demoralizing. Seeing shattered disheveled men, panic written all over their faces, some of them wounded streaming through your lines isn't going to be good for moral.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Of course the stacking limits were put into place because the stacks had gotten out of hand. Seems the fix may be just as bad as the initial problem from what you describe.

To solve it, perhaps a system that excludes either the retreated troops or the non-retreated troops on the first attack? I think I understand the problem...that is if a IJA attack succeeds then is immediately followed by a move to where the chinese troops retreated, then the subsequent defense is seriously hampered by all those 'broken' chinese units that offer no military value? I'd almost have to call that gamey myself. It may be working as intended, but puts the Allied player at a severe disadvantage.

House rule perhaps? X amount of turns before troops that just conquered a base can 'pursue' the retreated units? I'd agree to that myself, game needs to be fun for both players.

then the subsequent defense is seriously hampered by all those 'broken' chinese units that offer no military value? I'd almost have to call that gamey myself. It may be working as intended, but puts the Allied player at a severe disadvantage.

I'm not sure that I would call it "gamey".
Having troops from the front retreating though a second "fallback" line set up behind them can be demoralizing. Seeing shattered disheveled men, panic written all over their faces, some of them wounded streaming through your lines isn't going to be good for moral.

I agree. I think it better reflects the problems that defenders face in such a situation. Are the retreating troops really just left to starve, and so on?

It does make certain things more difficult, but I still like it.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I agree. I think it better reflects the problems that defenders face in such a situation. Are the retreating troops really just left to starve, and so on?

It does make certain things more difficult, but I still like it.

Ditto.

The game has always been a cakewalk in China for the Japanese.
Stacking limits makes the game more realistic in many ways and eliminates DeathStar stack gaming.
Just because it didn't fix China, whose problems far eclipse stacking, doesn't make it a failure.

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I agree. I think it better reflects the problems that defenders face in such a situation. Are the retreating troops really just left to starve, and so on?

It does make certain things more difficult, but I still like it.

SLs were spackled onto the side of an engine never built to have them. In that sense they work fantastically well.

OTOH though, retreating troops ought to affect morale and disrupt the hexes they flee through. and have to eat, but they theoretically shouldn't eat more than a linear amount. The game basically makes Supply represent food and ammo (and av gas, but not relevant, plus sundries like clothing, also not relevant here.) Fleeing, routed troops eat, but mostly don't shoot.

SLs on atolls are a different matter to me. Those are combat-effective troops.

I'm playing China both ways, and so far I see pros and cons. I kinda agree that SLs don't fix China; they just change it. I'm still a ways away from seeing what they do in Burma.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
I think the OP was writing about me moving up the Ankang road versus Jocke. But in truth, I was held at the original entry hex for a long time and had to cycle many divisions in and out before the snowball was started. Plus, I had to allocate a lot of planes to that spot. Now Jocke has 3x the stacking limit at Ankang and that has to hurt really badly especially since most of it is battered troops trying to retreat. And it probably hurts the supply the most...and supply is something you don't want to waste in China.

It burned up all supply among the units in one turn. And when I say all I mean all. [:)]

It makes it really hard to build a defense in depth. And now I can´t get out of it as the snowball just keeps getting bigger as troops can´t evacuate before the Japanese move into the same hex. My main gripe with this is that it turns perfectly good dug in defenders into completely useless troops as their supply just vaporizes over a turn.

This is how Tom bust straight through China in just a couple of weeks. Just follow the routing blob of overstacked misery as it rolls toward Chungking! [:D]

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Of course the stacking limits were put into place because the stacks had gotten out of hand. Seems the fix may be just as bad as the initial problem from what you describe.

To solve it, perhaps a system that excludes either the retreated troops or the non-retreated troops on the first attack? I think I understand the problem...that is if a IJA attack succeeds then is immediately followed by a move to where the chinese troops retreated, then the subsequent defense is seriously hampered by all those 'broken' chinese units that offer no military value? I'd almost have to call that gamey myself. It may be working as intended, but puts the Allied player at a severe disadvantage.

House rule perhaps? X amount of turns before troops that just conquered a base can 'pursue' the retreated units? I'd agree to that myself, game needs to be fun for both players.

then the subsequent defense is seriously hampered by all those 'broken' chinese units that offer no military value? I'd almost have to call that gamey myself. It may be working as intended, but puts the Allied player at a severe disadvantage.

I'm not sure that I would call it "gamey".
Having troops from the front retreating though a second "fallback" line set up behind them can be demoralizing. Seeing shattered disheveled men, panic written all over their faces, some of them wounded streaming through your lines isn't going to be good for moral.

Normally I'd agree if the game hadn't added stacking limits that causes a big penalty from the overstack.

I see it from both sides. Without the stack limits, you could put 100 divisions in a place and hold it forever. With the stack limits your defense in depth gets broken when the units that retreat fall into your second defense line and over stacks it.

Perhaps the best solution was already suggested. Never stack more troops into a hex that will cause a retreat to overstack the adjacent hex. People may just have to adjust the way they play.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Of course the stacking limits were put into place because the stacks had gotten out of hand. Seems the fix may be just as bad as the initial problem from what you describe.

To solve it, perhaps a system that excludes either the retreated troops or the non-retreated troops on the first attack? I think I understand the problem...that is if a IJA attack succeeds then is immediately followed by a move to where the chinese troops retreated, then the subsequent defense is seriously hampered by all those 'broken' chinese units that offer no military value? I'd almost have to call that gamey myself. It may be working as intended, but puts the Allied player at a severe disadvantage.

House rule perhaps? X amount of turns before troops that just conquered a base can 'pursue' the retreated units? I'd agree to that myself, game needs to be fun for both players.

then the subsequent defense is seriously hampered by all those 'broken' chinese units that offer no military value? I'd almost have to call that gamey myself. It may be working as intended, but puts the Allied player at a severe disadvantage.

I'm not sure that I would call it "gamey".
Having troops from the front retreating though a second "fallback" line set up behind them can be demoralizing. Seeing shattered disheveled men, panic written all over their faces, some of them wounded streaming through your lines isn't going to be good for moral.

Normally I'd agree if the game hadn't added stacking limits that causes a big penalty from the overstack.

I see it from both sides. Without the stack limits, you could put 100 divisions in a place and hold it forever. With the stack limits your defense in depth gets broken when the units that retreat fall into your second defense line and over stacks it.

Perhaps the best solution was already suggested. Never stack more troops into a hex that will cause a retreat to overstack the adjacent hex. People may just have to adjust the way they play.

Only problem with that is that the defender would be quickly overrun anyway due to lack of combat power. [:)]

[HansBolter]

JocMeister

Only problem with that is that the defender would be quickly overrun anyway due to lack of combat power. [:)]

Yea, no easy solution.

Lot's of very experienced gamers here though.

I'm confident one day we will come up with a fix.

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

JocMeister

Only problem with that is that the defender would be quickly overrun anyway due to lack of combat power. [:)]

Yea, no easy solution.

Lot's of very experienced gamers here though.

I'm confident one day we will come up with a fix.

Against the AI this is really evident. Once you beat the stack initially, you can chase it down with a single division and keep it on the run. Chinese units tend to get routed when beaten, more so than any unit in game.

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

JocMeister

Only problem with that is that the defender would be quickly overrun anyway due to lack of combat power. [:)]

Yea, no easy solution.

Lot's of very experienced gamers here though.

I'm confident one day we will come up with a fix.

Against the AI this is really evident. Once you beat the stack initially, you can chase it down with a single division and keep it on the run. Chinese units tend to get routed when beaten, more so than any unit in game.

Perhaps it seems so because we tend to see the Chinese getting routed more often than any other nationality.

I'm actually seeing the same thing in Manchuria with the Japanese. Once a Russian stack forces the Japs to retreat a single Russian division is enough to follow and keep them routing.

[crsutton]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I agree. I think it better reflects the problems that defenders face in such a situation. Are the retreating troops really just left to starve, and so on?

It does make certain things more difficult, but I still like it.

Ditto.

The game has always been a cakewalk in China for the Japanese.
Stacking limits makes the game more realistic in many ways and eliminates DeathStar stack gaming.
Just because it didn't fix China, whose problems far eclipse stacking, doesn't make it a failure.

Yes a valid point as I think stacking limits are working well for the most part in all other theaters. The only other issue might be a late war invasion of Japan. There is really not much room in Japan and it could be a problem for the Japanese. Of course, few games make it that far so it is less imperative than the China thing which faces a whole boatload of issues.

I think a better solution is to allow all Chinese units to draw at least a minimal amount of supply from the surrounding country. Chinese troops over all other nations were very adept at living off the land-including setting up their own crude munitions factories. In the end, of the supply that the Allies flew into China only a very small fraction actually went to Chinese ground troops. The vast bulk of the supply went to support the Allied air force, and of the supply that went to Chinese troops 90% went to the "private" Allied armies that the Allies nominally controlled in India and Burma. The survival of China should not be dependent on the air bridge from India. And this would eliminated a major game play move that is almost set in stone for Japan. Likewise, it is not unusual to accumulate literally thousands of Chinese replacement squads in the pool that cannot be used as you usually can not take replacement due to lack of supply. Chinese units should be exempt from any supply requirements and changed zero supply for taking replacements. This would go a long way towards rectifying the China issues for the Allies.

I will note that China is the one theater that the Allies can totally lose and still win the game. In the end, it is still a naval war and if the Allied player wins that, they should be just fine.

[JocMeister]

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Yea, no easy solution.

Lot's of very experienced gamers here though.

I'm confident one day we will come up with a fix.

In all honestly I don´t think much more can be done with this engine. Not unless some of the devs with access to the code can/want/is allowed to come up with a better solution. But given how little have happened with the ground part of the game over the years I don´t think more can be done.

What we really need is WITP 2 on a new engine. [:)]

[Alfred]

Whilst Allied players continue to employ the wrong strategy and tactics in China, they will continue to get these results with or without stacking limits.
 
Alfred