China taking of Chungking

[GetAssista]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks
Consider leaving a route open in the clear hex to the NW for the Chinese to run.

There is no base to run to, so they won't run. Chungking is 2x hex admittedly, but you can eventually get forts to zero in the base hex, not so in the open hex if they manage to build them

[Lowpe]

Read some AARs where Chungking has fallen. Everybody pretty much uses the same roadmap.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Lowpe

Read some AARs where Chungking has fallen. Everybody pretty much uses the same roadmap.

+1
Applies to almost all sieges .... one thing you get good at playing the AI is sieges ... especially against Ironman scenarios. Everything is a siege against high level forts.

[1EyedJacks]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Chungking is also "open" terrain.

Unless someone can show me a post from a dev or something that says otherwise, I think it's just Forum Gospel that troops fight harder when cornered.

Well I'm not much for gospel - lol. But my experience is that:
- Troops pushed into an open hex w/o being in a city take grievous damage from bombers.
- That routed units suffer more of a loss in morale, and their supply situation is much more critical away from Chungking as long as you still surround the enemy units.
- That the Chinese troops won't continue to add troops to the units once Japan owns Chungking.
- That armor and artillery is much more effective in a plain grass hex than in a "open" hex with a city in it.
- That enemy units with some type of terrain advantage seem to stay alive and take a hellacious pounding and rarely surrender or die on the vine unless they run out of supplies.

[GetAssista]

Killing off Chungking garrison in the open is better of course. Against AI I always get Chengtu first (easier than Chungking) and then leave Neikiang untouched and route to Chungking open to leave retreat option for the garrison. Unfortunately, in OP's situation it seems not be an option, and full scale siege is necessary.

There is somewhat gamey plan possible, with using surrouded Chinese units in Kienko to shorten the main siege: let them live, preserve some of their AV until you start hitting 2:1 in Chungking, then let them autocapture the base (by retreating all your units at once) and leave route to Kienko open. Then Chungking garrison will retreat from the city to Kienko with your next strong attack. Still needs months of siege first, but will shave off some considerable time else spent on killing off ever-reviving units during the later stages of siege.

Edit: of course this would necessitate leaving some of the hexsides open in Chungking itself (either eastern one or north-western one would suffice) and keep a blocking force at that direction to prevent breakthroughs

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Unless someone can show me a post from a dev or something that says otherwise, I think it's just Forum Gospel that troops fight harder when cornered.

I think what was meant is the long and tedious process of killing off the troops that are surrounded in non-base hexes with no retreat option. In earlier betas it was really out of hand, especially the invincible HQ units. Now it is much easier, but still, making them retreat wears them off faster than pounding them in place.

[Yaab]

You know, with the fall of Chungking, KMT and "the Peanut", the code should install Wang Jingwei in Chungking as the new ruler of China and boost replacement rates for the collaborationist Chinese units.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

... I think it's just Forum Gospel that troops fight harder when cornered.

Gossip?

[BBfanboy]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

... I think it's just Forum Gospel that troops fight harder when cornered.

Gossip?

[:D]
I think there is some logic to it - when they can flee the unit with the lowest morale/poorest leader combination runs first and a stampede ensues - so the amount of time spent resisting is less than the full combat cycle.
When there is no escape the unit can only fight to the death or surrender. Either way shows the unit as destroyed, I think. I suspect that surrender is less likely than fleeing, so they may actually fight longer than if they can flee.

[rustysi]

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

Some people might question the ethics of suicide crossings of hexes by armoured car units of course....

Just saying.....

Roger

Ho-hum.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Lokasenna is one of those anything goes type players. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but that's not my game style. I agree with Roger. I would ask my 'most worthy opponent' first about what he thought of the tactic. Its easier to ask than try to clean up the mess later.

[Marshall]

NO need for suicide attacks, but I do think a proper banzai charge for the emperor should be possible!
My troops are bushido warriors that do the bidding of the divine emperor.

here is a result of a 2 hex infiltration over the river.
one side to be closed off in this way, although it is already blocked by troops from that end (south entry)
For the river crossing, I used infantry

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Chungking (76,45)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 11658 troops, 473 guns, 600 vehicles, Assault Value = 3152

Defending force 211540 troops, 130 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 8240

Japanese adjusted assault: 518

Allied adjusted defense: 6559

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 12 (fort level 6)

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

Japanese ground losses:
44 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Allied ground losses:
589 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 42 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Units destroyed 1

Assaulting units:
36th Division
116th Division
110th Division
27th/A Division
12th Division
11th Tank Regiment
13th Division
12th Tank Regiment
9th Tank Regiment
14th Division
27th/C Division
4th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
2nd Hvy.Artillery Regiment
North China Area Army
2nd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
9th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
5th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
20th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
11th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
1st Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
4th Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
4th RF Gun Battalion
10th Mortar Battalion
Botanko Hvy Gun Regiment
6th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
3rd Army
3rd Hvy.Artillery Regiment
10th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
7th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
22nd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
4th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
6th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
6th RF Gun Battalion

Defending units:
13th Chinese Corps
1st Chinese Corps
83rd Chinese Corps
91st Chinese Corps
3rd Chinese Corps
22nd Chinese Corps
51st Chinese Corps
6th Chinese Corps
89th Chinese Corps
40th Chinese Corps
90th Chinese Corps
36th Chinese Corps
85th Chinese Corps
58th Chinese Corps
29th Chinese Corps
38th Chinese Corps
3rd Prov Chinese Corps
16th Chinese Corps
4th Chinese Cavalry Corps
23rd Chinese Corps
96th Chinese Corps
7th New Chinese Corps
62nd Chinese Corps
55th Chinese Corps
42nd Chinese Corps
95th Chinese Corps
12th Chinese Corps
69th Chinese Corps
8th New Chinese Corps
71st Chinese Corps
61st Chinese Corps
84th Chinese Corps
35th Chinese Corps
39th Chinese Corps
7th Chinese Corps
3rd Chinese Cavalry Corps
92nd Chinese Corps
19th Chinese Corps
21st Chinese Corps
10th Construction Regiment
17th Chinese Corps
34th Separate Brigade
9th Separate Brigade
259th Brigade
24th Chinese Corps
30th Chinese Corps
8th Route Army
43rd Chinese Corps
12th Construction Regiment
2nd War Area
10th Chinese Base Force
7th Artillery Regiment
3rd Chinese Base Force
20th Artillery Regiment
19th Chinese Base Force
14th Construction Regiment
15th Chinese Base Force
34th Group Army
37th Group Army
3rd Group Army
8th Chinese Base Force
Red Chinese Army
8th War Area
1st Chinese Base Force
CAF HQ
12th Chinese Base Force
2nd Construction Regiment
8th Construction Regiment
4th Chinese Base Force
13th Group Army
18th Group Army
6th Chinese Base Force
5th Chinese Base Force
4th Construction Regiment
AVG Ground Echelon
21st Chinese Base Force
13th Chinese Base Force
3rd Construction Regiment
7th Construction Regiment
2nd Group Army
China Command
18th Artillery Regiment
23rd Group Army
303rd Brigade
5th War Area
Jingcha War Area
1st Construction Regiment
56th AT Gun Regiment

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

Chungking is also "open" terrain.

Unless someone can show me a post from a dev or something that says otherwise, I think it's just Forum Gospel that troops fight harder when cornered.

Well I'm not much for gospel - lol. But my experience is that:
- Troops pushed into an open hex w/o being in a city take grievous damage from bombers.
- That routed units suffer more of a loss in morale, and their supply situation is much more critical away from Chungking as long as you still surround the enemy units.
- That the Chinese troops won't continue to add troops to the units once Japan owns Chungking.
- That armor and artillery is much more effective in a plain grass hex than in a "open" hex with a city in it.
- That enemy units with some type of terrain advantage seem to stay alive and take a hellacious pounding and rarely surrender or die on the vine unless they run out of supplies.

Both times I've captured Chungking, all of the troops in the base surrendered when it fell. The case where troops hang on in a base to fight seems to happen much more with Japanese troops than any other time. I don't know why this is. Maybe it's a function of morale? My IJA units seem to not take morale hits very easily. I don't know. But I do know that I've never seen Chinese stay on to fight in a base that just fell.

I just don't understand why you'd want them to retreat when you captured the city, instead of just surrendering. Why make more work for yourself? It's easier to just close all the hex sides.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: rustysi

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

ORIGINAL: Roger Neilson 3

Some people might question the ethics of suicide crossings of hexes by armoured car units of course....

Just saying.....

Roger

Ho-hum.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Lokasenna is one of those anything goes type players. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but that's not my game style. I agree with Roger. I would ask my 'most worthy opponent' first about what he thought of the tactic. Its easier to ask than try to clean up the mess later.

I was going to write up a post about where do you draw the line? What unit suiciding across the river is big enough? Is there anything that would be big enough to appease the Great Gamey Gods in the Sky? A tank regiment? A division? Four divisions? What?

It's not as if there are no consequences, and it's also not as if there's no counter (the SE hex side in particular from Chungking is a very slow crossing for the example armoured car unit, due to the terrain type). The point of closing the hex sides is to prevent the Chinese from running away. The Chinese could just run away first if they didn't want that to happen.

Besides that, there are numerous examples in history where a city was entirely besieged but didn't need armies to come at it from 6 different sides. The AE ground system is extremely abstract, and so citing realism when talking about a single small unit crossing a hex side to close it is a bit absurd. In terms of realism, the day by day fighting in the city itself could lead to the defenders being entirely surrounded with no hope of escape.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: Marshall

NO need for suicide attacks, but I do think a proper banzai charge for the emperor should be possible!
My troops are bushido warriors that do the bidding of the divine emperor.

here is a result of a 2 hex infiltration over the river.
one side to be closed off in this way, although it is already blocked by troops from that end (south entry)
For the river crossing, I used infantry

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Chungking (76,45)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 11658 troops, 473 guns, 600 vehicles, Assault Value = 3152

Defending force 211540 troops, 130 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 8240

Japanese adjusted assault: 518

Allied adjusted defense: 6559

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 12 (fort level 6)

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

Japanese ground losses:
44 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Allied ground losses:
589 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 42 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Units destroyed 1

Assaulting units:
36th Division
116th Division
110th Division
27th/A Division
12th Division
11th Tank Regiment
13th Division
12th Tank Regiment
9th Tank Regiment
14th Division
27th/C Division
4th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
2nd Hvy.Artillery Regiment
North China Area Army
2nd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
9th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
5th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
20th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
11th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
1st Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
4th Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
4th RF Gun Battalion
10th Mortar Battalion
Botanko Hvy Gun Regiment
6th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
3rd Army
3rd Hvy.Artillery Regiment
10th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
7th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
22nd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
4th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
6th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
6th RF Gun Battalion

Defending units:
13th Chinese Corps
1st Chinese Corps
83rd Chinese Corps
91st Chinese Corps
3rd Chinese Corps
22nd Chinese Corps
51st Chinese Corps
6th Chinese Corps
89th Chinese Corps
40th Chinese Corps
90th Chinese Corps
36th Chinese Corps
85th Chinese Corps
58th Chinese Corps
29th Chinese Corps
38th Chinese Corps
3rd Prov Chinese Corps
16th Chinese Corps
4th Chinese Cavalry Corps
23rd Chinese Corps
96th Chinese Corps
7th New Chinese Corps
62nd Chinese Corps
55th Chinese Corps
42nd Chinese Corps
95th Chinese Corps
12th Chinese Corps
69th Chinese Corps
8th New Chinese Corps
71st Chinese Corps
61st Chinese Corps
84th Chinese Corps
35th Chinese Corps
39th Chinese Corps
7th Chinese Corps
3rd Chinese Cavalry Corps
92nd Chinese Corps
19th Chinese Corps
21st Chinese Corps
10th Construction Regiment
17th Chinese Corps
34th Separate Brigade
9th Separate Brigade
259th Brigade
24th Chinese Corps
30th Chinese Corps
8th Route Army
43rd Chinese Corps
12th Construction Regiment
2nd War Area
10th Chinese Base Force
7th Artillery Regiment
3rd Chinese Base Force
20th Artillery Regiment
19th Chinese Base Force
14th Construction Regiment
15th Chinese Base Force
34th Group Army
37th Group Army
3rd Group Army
8th Chinese Base Force
Red Chinese Army
8th War Area
1st Chinese Base Force
CAF HQ
12th Chinese Base Force
2nd Construction Regiment
8th Construction Regiment
4th Chinese Base Force
13th Group Army
18th Group Army
6th Chinese Base Force
5th Chinese Base Force
4th Construction Regiment
AVG Ground Echelon
21st Chinese Base Force
13th Chinese Base Force
3rd Construction Regiment
7th Construction Regiment
2nd Group Army
China Command
18th Artillery Regiment
23rd Group Army
303rd Brigade
5th War Area
Jingcha War Area
1st Construction Regiment
56th AT Gun Regiment

These results tell me that your opponent has the vast majority of his troops in Reserve mode.

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

Killing off Chungking garrison in the open is better of course. Against AI I always get Chengtu first (easier than Chungking) and then leave Neikiang untouched and route to Chungking open to leave retreat option for the garrison. Unfortunately, in OP's situation it seems not be an option, and full scale siege is necessary.

There is somewhat gamey plan possible, with using surrouded Chinese units in Kienko to shorten the main siege: let them live, preserve some of their AV until you start hitting 2:1 in Chungking, then let them autocapture the base (by retreating all your units at once) and leave route to Kienko open. Then Chungking garrison will retreat from the city to Kienko with your next strong attack. Still needs months of siege first, but will shave off some considerable time else spent on killing off ever-reviving units during the later stages of siege.

Edit: of course this would necessitate leaving some of the hexsides open in Chungking itself (either eastern one or north-western one would suffice) and keep a blocking force at that direction to prevent breakthroughs

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna
Unless someone can show me a post from a dev or something that says otherwise, I think it's just Forum Gospel that troops fight harder when cornered.

I think what was meant is the long and tedious process of killing off the troops that are surrounded in non-base hexes with no retreat option. In earlier betas it was really out of hand, especially the invincible HQ units. Now it is much easier, but still, making them retreat wears them off faster than pounding them in place.

The only Invincible HQs that refuse to surrender that I've seen have been my Japanese ones, and on islands. On land, they would retreat and be slaughtered when subjected to high assault odds.

In any case, here's one of my Chungking captures:

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 396406 troops, 4758 guns, 4991 vehicles, Assault Value = 10996

Defending force 317957 troops, 244 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 3601

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 0

Japanese adjusted assault: 7850

Allied adjusted defense: 2599

Japanese assault odds: 3 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Chungking !!!

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

Japanese ground losses:
15547 casualties reported
Squads: 108 destroyed, 1278 disabled
Non Combat: 15 destroyed, 158 disabled
Engineers: 10 destroyed, 255 disabled
Guns lost 177 (9 destroyed, 168 disabled)
Vehicles lost 163 (41 destroyed, 122 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
213032 casualties reported
Squads: 11753 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 16866 destroyed, 0 disabled
Engineers: 82 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 297 (297 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units destroyed 118

No units remained on to fight.

That was April 17, 1943. The siege began in spring 1942.


Also, here's a cautionary tale about putting your units in Chungking on Reserve mode when you close hex sides:

Ground combat at Chungking (76,45)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 7299 troops, 417 guns, 462 vehicles, Assault Value = 6743

Defending force 343289 troops, 1183 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 9593

Assault collapses, survivors seek cover

Japanese ground losses:
745 casualties reported
Squads: 19 destroyed, 0 disabled
Non Combat: 70 destroyed, 142 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 199 (111 destroyed, 88 disabled)
Vehicles lost 279 (105 destroyed, 174 disabled)
Units destroyed 1

Allied ground losses:
212 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 8 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled

I crossed with an Infantry Division, and my artillery took huge hits. I may have forgotten to turn off their bombardment, but they may have been set to Defend also. Not sure. This was 2-ish years ago now.

[Alfred]

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

ORIGINAL: Lokasenna

... I think it's just Forum Gospel that troops fight harder when cornered.

Gossip?

PaxMondo,

It is not gossip but also it is not well understood and thus forum discussions are often very imprecise.

I was excoriated by some when I addressed this issue in October 2014 in this thread:

tm.asp?m=3713550&mpage=1&key=attu&#3713891

In addition to the time spent last year researching the issue I have now spent another 7 hours researching this to triply confirm to my satisfaction and standards (which are much higher than most who answer in the forum) that I was correct. This has involved me extending my research back into classical WITP.

However as what I say doesn't carry any weight with so many forumites, I won't bother explaining the retreat, surrender and banzai conditions. Those conditions are not well understood by players and consequently when posters recommend allowing an escape route it is not always the best course of action. You may also note that michaelm neither contradicted what I wrote last year nor asked for a save to investigate which he normally does when he thinks there might be a problem.

Alfred

[1EyedJacks]

Yo Alfred - I still love ya, baby."





But I'm good w/Lokasenna & Bullwinkle too. I don't have to pick sides in this.

And I'm not afraid to learn something new (although sometimes I'm a tad resistant to change <wry grin>).

So for leaving a hex open - my thinking is that the Chinese will route before they surrender. I also suspect that all of the incapacitated units/guns would be left behind and that the routed units would have little supply and a heavy penalty to moral and disruption. I was thinking to leave the NW hex from Chungking open - but that units would be in place to insure that hex was surrounded. In this scenario the Chinese no longer receive reinforcements and their supplies are cut off. I'd be pounding the open hex with bombers while maneuvering my units to resume the attack later. I think this process would reduce the amount of time required for the capture of Chungking and still leave the Chinese troops in a killing field. But I might-could be wrong.

In the situations described by the OP, I would pound the AF with Medium Bombers in an effort to stop forts from increasing. I would maneuver additional units into the theatre until such time as I had 4:1 in AV. I would insure my divisions had good commanders. I would bombard with those 16 arty units for a couple days, rest, and then rinse-and-repeat. I would leave that NW hex escape route open.
And then I'd start whittling down the base forts with D_ATKs, rest & supply, insuring I had a Corps HQ and an Area HQ in locations to provide their support.

Alfred, in your opinion, is there a better method for taking Chungking?

[Lokasenna]

ORIGINAL: 1EyedJacks

Yo Alfred - I still love ya, baby."





But I'm good w/Lokasenna & Bullwinkle too. I don't have to pick sides in this.

And I'm not afraid to learn something new (although sometimes I'm a tad resistant to change <wry grin>).

So for leaving a hex open - my thinking is that the Chinese will route before they surrender. I also suspect that all of the incapacitated units/guns would be left behind and that the routed units would have little supply and a heavy penalty to moral and disruption. I was thinking to leave the NW hex from Chungking open - but that units would be in place to insure that hex was surrounded. In this scenario the Chinese no longer receive reinforcements and their supplies are cut off. I'd be pounding the open hex with bombers while maneuvering my units to resume the attack later. I think this process would reduce the amount of time required for the capture of Chungking and still leave the Chinese troops in a killing field. But I might-could be wrong.

In the situations described by the OP, I would pound the AF with Medium Bombers in an effort to stop forts from increasing. I would maneuver additional units into the theatre until such time as I had 4:1 in AV. I would insure my divisions had good commanders. I would bombard with those 16 arty units for a couple days, rest, and then rinse-and-repeat. I would leave that NW hex escape route open.
And then I'd start whittling down the base forts with D_ATKs, rest & supply, insuring I had a Corps HQ and an Area HQ in locations to provide their support.

Alfred, in your opinion, is there a better method for taking Chungking?

Why would that be the case? Does having no retreat path provide some kind of increase in the defenders' adjusted AV?

And why would you not just close the hex sides, take the base with the proper attack odds vs. fort value, and then just simply attack the defenders, should they remain in the hex, in the same place you just defeated them rather than chase them all over the countryside? You have to spend at minimum 2 days moving to the next hex, more if there is poor terrain.


I went back to that old thread I opened, which Alfred linked, because of the mention of a reference of certain nationalities surrendering more easily than others.

[BBfanboy]

Fighting in Chungking is UL terrain, so the Chinese masses get +2 advantage. Getting them out in the open and hitting them before they build field forts should make destroying them easier. But the real point is to be able to actually capture an empty Chungking earlier and shut off the bonuses it gives to the Allies.

[PaxMondo]

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

Fighting in Chungking is UL terrain, so the Chinese masses get +2 advantage. Getting them out in the open and hitting them before they build field forts should make destroying them easier.

+1

As I understand how 'mop-up' works in the game, and I have used this where my anecdotal evidence has shown me that it is easier when the above conditions are met (that you can get the enemy units to retreat into a lower defensive value terrain hex). It is more of a hassle of course. You have to orchestrate the retreat route and then cut off any other paths in the new hex.

Also, the requirement of lower defense value terrain is not frequently available, so it isn't like this is something that you do all that often.

As I noted in another thread recently, when you play Ironman AI scenarios you end up doing far more sieges than PBEM; and in any of the Nasty versions quite a bit more as essentially every target base has organic supply that you cannot destroy. You quickly discover that most bases on the map have similar terrain, or lower, to their surrounding hexes. So, you finish the siege in the base hex my average is about 7 successful attacks AFTER I take the base hex ownership to complete annihilation of the enemy. In my current game, in one specific base in rough/jungle terrain, I am at 9 attacks with 12 days resting in between and still have not completed annihilation (Yeah, almost 4 months now ... I hope to finish in another 2 months..

[;)]

I don't think I have contradicted anything that Alfred posted, but if I did then I'm likely in error <again>.

PS: Note, I am playing Nasty Nasty, so by definition the opposing units are frequently +80 exp which triggers these REALLY long mop up operations.

[Alfred]

1.&nbsp; AE left untouched classical WITP's code on retreat/surrender/banzai of LCUs.&nbsp; Practically every "official" utterance on this issue predates the release of AE.&nbsp; On 29 April 2009 wdolson gave the most detailed AE statement on this subject, essentially that AE was SAIEW,&nbsp;and that date was a few months before AE was even released.
&nbsp;
2.&nbsp; Any player who says that one must always leave a retreat path is simply wrong.&nbsp; Ditto for anyone who says one must always totally trap the enemy in a base.&nbsp; The correct approach depends on the specific circumstances and what is the major reason for fighting that local campaign.
&nbsp;
3.&nbsp; In game terms, technically no one fights "harder" just because they are trapped.&nbsp; The combat algorithms are not altered to assist trapped units survive longer.&nbsp; All "nationalities"&nbsp;labour under the same combat algorithms.
&nbsp;
4.&nbsp; The retreat/surrender/banzai conditions are a post combat outcome involving a different set of algorithms.&nbsp; Here there is a difference between player 1 (aka Japan) and player 2 (aka Allies) with regard to surrender and banzai (see following point).
&nbsp;
5.&nbsp; In the linked thread I provided I tried to make it clear that Japanese LCUs do not surrender as easily as do Allied LCUs.&nbsp; This is very much intentional and was referred to as the "Japanese Banzai/no surrender rule" on 20 May 2004 by Nikademus in classical WITP.&nbsp; At the time Nikademus was the point man on classical WITP bug squashing.&nbsp; He would refer legitimate bugs back to the land coder for rectification.
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
The specific details on how it all&nbsp;operates is spread out in several threads in classical WITP.&nbsp; Major discussions on the subject which can still be retrieved (not all relevant threads remain retrievable) occurred in:
&nbsp;
May 2004
Sept 2004
July 2005
Feb 2006
April 2007
April 2009
&nbsp;
Care in reading the discussions is necessary as many posts were made by individuals who subsequently became AE devs but at the time had no access to the game code.&nbsp; The "official", authoritative posts come from
&nbsp;
Pry
Mr Fragg
Nikademus
Erik Rutins
and from about 2008 onwards when he had access to the code, wdolson
&nbsp;
&nbsp;
And no, for the time being I will not expand on what I wrote in October 2014.&nbsp; I was correct then and anyone who still dismisses what I wrote then will simply be&nbsp;unwilling to understanding any additional and expanded explanation from me.
&nbsp;
Alfred