Ground Combat changes - not here yet?

[ADavidB]

I've now started the full length scenario four times against the AI as I slowly learn the nuances of this game and start to unlearn non-usefull UV habits. (In fact, I find myself using old Pacwar approaches more than I expected - the AI does a lot of things that it did in the full campaign in Pacwar. I guess Gary really believes in some of those things...[;)] )

One unexpected aspect of WitP for me has been the ground combat. From the preliminary info and the beta-testers I was expecting ground combat to be dragged out, particularly on non-atoll hexs. But instead all I am seeing is "get 2:1 odds and say bye-bye". Ground combat is over in one day in most instances.

At first I didn't pay a lot of attention, because WitP does "feel" a lot like Pacwar. But then I started to realize that, wait-a-minute, these are one-day turns, not one-week turns!

Thus, you get the Japanese taking Hong Kong in 2 days, and other smaller cities in one day. Sure, the Japanese troops were good and the Allied troops were not very good in December 1941, but the implementation just doesn't feel right.

I guess that I'll just have to wait to see what happens when I try some Allied assaults - I wonder if the old Pacwar requirement for a 10:1 to get rid of Japanese troops is hidden in the code somewhere?

Dave Baranyi

[Deathifier]

Oh ground combat drags out very nicely, in fact too nicely.

Singapore holds against the AI for a fair while, for me it fell on the 14th Feb, and all I did to help was ship in some 50k supplies.

Clark Field is STILL holding out, and I'm still killing more in Bombardments, as of the 24th of March. The AI did take Manilia when it landed a couple of extra units, though I threw them out with just a tank unit a few times.

It took 2 weeks or more to kill off two surrounded Jap divisions that walked in and attacked a city.

You need the odds to take cities, but wholesale killing of troops takes a while - I had odds of over 2k once or twice and the Japs just took the losses, and took them some more, and more (600-1k at a time).
Shock attack, deliberate attack, nothing helped speed the process up!

So yes the combat drags on if you are fighting to the death, or over a well defended city (Naga held out with 2 inf units, 2 ENG units and a HQ for a month and a half, outnumbered 4-5 to 1).

Have fun
- Deathifier

[Jim D Burns]

I agree, perhaps requiring a 5-1 odds ratio to capture a base would help simulate the attrition warfare that usually preceded a retreat during WWII. I realize the Japanese did well with few forces early in the war in the DEI, Malaya, Philippines, etc. But let's not forget they have been fighting in China since 1937. In some of the AAR's, China is a complete blowout in just 6 months.

Perhaps there should be a 2-1 rule for certain HQ's and their subordinate units, or better yet for specific bases (prevents changing HQ control to up base capture odds) for the first 6 months of the war or something. Most assaults should require much greater odds ratios than 2-1 to capture a base and force a retreat in my opinion.

Retreats are also too easy to accomplish in the game. So what if a base changes hands, a unit shouldn't be forced to retreat from a 60 mile hex unless it lost in a very big way. Simply change control of the hex unless 6-1 or 8-1 odds or better are achieved or something. China needs to be a huge pit for Japan with little or no chance to move inland without a MAJOR commitment of troops from other theatres of the war. Japan simply didn’t have the required number of troops to conquer China, that’s why the war lasted so long even though their armies were far superior to China’s. As it stands now, China will probably fall (or be driven back to just a couple bases) in less than a year or two without many more troops being added to that theatre.

One of the problems that Japan suffered in the war was that Chinese divisions would simply melt away into the countryside as Japan advanced, and then they would reform in their rear after Japan moved on. Granted city garrison rules try to simulate this to some extent, but how differently would you use your 'extra' units in China if you knew a division sized unit could pop up anywhere (usually along a rail supply net) in your rear area at any time? I doubt we'd be seeing people taking many more cities in the first 6 months of play.

Jim

[Hard Sarge]

5 to 1 ? greesh, I had a 157 to 1, and killed 13 troops, while loseing 150

I think you may take the base once the Fort's are down and 0 with a 2 to 1 attack, but it is going to take awhile to finish off the troops that pulled out of the base

HARD_Sarge

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Hard Sarge

5 to 1 ? greesh, I had a 157 to 1, and killed 13 troops, while loseing 150

I think you may take the base once the Fort's are down and 0 with a 2 to 1 attack, but it is going to take awhile to finish off the troops that pulled out of the base

HARD_Sarge

I'm seeing troops surrender enmass at 2-1 or 3-1 odds if they have no retreat path. In China you don't need to destroy their troops, simply pursue (allows you to advance before they can move back to your hex) the Chinese to one or two bases and they'll die of starvation, it's simply to easy to push them back at only 2-1 odds.

Jim

[Nikademus]

Ground combat did indeed receive a major overhaul and in the right circumstances, will drag out combat and/or increase casualties and disablements to a much higher degree than was seen in UV. However the basic modified odds system is still in place so this may be part of the confusion. Thus, the system still works the same in that respect (i.e. if you achieve better than 1:1 modified combat odds in a FORT=0 situation then yes, if Allied you will see a surrender or retreat (base captured). Part of the problem you are "seeing" here is that the grand campaign starts off with small fort levels. Were some of these bases at FORT=9 you would be seeing more of a difference in time scale. Hong Kong can be taken easily if you plan right. It starts at Level 4 FORT but it's main weakness is that it has only one strong LCU and if you use airpower to heavily disrupt this unit, and bring in sufficient force levels, you can quickly take the base with a minimum of fuss. An AI test game demonstrated to me the wrong way to do it....i.e. the "UV" way...the AI went immediately to the assault with only the 38th Div and a month later, while it had reduced the FORT level to zero it could not acheive 2:1 odds and even had it....it would have been a pyriffic victory because the Division was shattered by the month long fighting and would need a long period of rest and refit.

The exception to the surrender rule is the Japanese who will not surrender en-mass if all avenues of retreat are cut off but will continue to put up resistance even after the base is captured. In certain cases Allied units will also not completely surrender en-mass. I surrounded four Chinese corps in the 2day AAR but it took a week of fighting at greater than 2:1 odds to fully destroy all four corps.

other changes:

Atoll combat was changed so that landing units go immediately into a full fledged shock attack and combat in this respect will be very quick and very bloody. (with great potential for disaster unless the player on the offensive plans carefully and coordinates his landings)

Urban combat bonus was initiated. If force levels are sufficient this can be very dangerous for an attacker. (read my 2day AAR if you dont believe me.....a premature deliberate attack by two full IJA divisions on Manila resulted in 2200 casualties for only a hundred or so Allied.... a complete repulsing of the attack)

Even after i made up for my mistake, brought in overwelming force levels and airpower, casualties were still high but yes, the assault was successful after 2 turns (days) However note in the AAR that i spent over a week bombarding the units with both ground and mass airpower before going over to the attack. Airpower is critical for assaulting strong positions.

Lastly in the AAR's you will notice that few "Shock Attacks" are used now. This is because there is a big difference here thanks to the changes that increase casualties. You have to be very careful with them otherwise you could easily end up with thousands of casualties.

[Black Cat]

Niks post above should really be added up top to Kid`s WITP FAQ before it gets lost........

[Jim D Burns]

But my point is it's too easy to take a hex or force a retreat. I mean a week of fighting to destroy four corps of troops! Just the shear size of the enemy formation would make a month or more of fighting seems more reasonable, even if they are surrounded, bombed, cutoff and dying. The Germans held out for over 60 days in Stalingrad cutoff in the worst possible weather conditions with only meager air transported supplies coming in hostile territory with less than half of the men that 4 Chinese corps represent.

Granted the Germans were far more efficient at fighting than the Chinese, but hungry is hungry, doesn't matter what nationality you are. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect at least a month of fighting in your example, unless the Japanese had overwhelming (5-1 or better) force present. The Russians had about a 3-1 majority or better at Stalingrad, which was about the minimum odds needed to successfully attack in WWII.

Airpower helped in WWII, but it shouldn't be able to cause units to give up the ghost after only 1 week of bombardments. They say it took 100 B17's to guarantee a good chance of a hit on a factory, imagine how much harder it was to hit entrenched or hidden troops with any kind of effect. After the carpet bombings (largest ground strike of the war) in operation Cobra (1700 heavy bombers and medium bombers), the Pz Lehr Division only lost about 38% of its operational strength, and had recovered to only about 15% permanent losses within a week.

Jim

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

But my point is it's too easy to take a hex or force a retreat. I mean a week of fighting to destroy four corps of troops! Just the shear size of the enemy formation would make a month or more of fighting seems more reasonable, even if they are surrounded, bombed, cutoff and dying. The Germans held out for over 60 days in Stalingrad cutoff in the worst possible weather conditions with only meager air transported supplies coming in hostile territory with less than half of the men that 4 Chinese corps represent.

Not in this case. The four Chinese corps were not well experienced or particularily well equiped. However the biggest factor was that the fight with them did not start off in that hex.....the fight started weeks earlier and they only ended up there after being shoved out of 1-2 other hexes. The act of surrounding them and then destroying them was in effect, an end game of a much longer operation. the phase where i slowly encircled the LCU's took almost two weeks to complete during which the entire time i was bombarding the crap out of them. I belive the operation involved over 100000 decently trained Japanese army troops and hundreds of guns.....by the time the final drive began (after they were surrounded) the Chinese LCU's were in pitiful strength if their assault values were any indicator and i'm sure they were also low on supply having been long since cut off from supply lines.

Airpower helped in WWII, but it shouldn't be able to cause units to give up the ghost after only 1 week of bombardments. They say it took 100 B17's to guarantee a good chance of a hit on a factory, imagine how much harder it was to hit entrenched or hidden troops with any kind of effect. After the carpet bombings (largest ground strike of the war) in operation Cobra (1700 heavy bombers and medium bombers), the Pz Lehr Division only lost about 38% of its operational strength after the bombings, and had recovered to only about 15% permanent losses within a week.

This is a legitimate concern, and one i voiced during my tests of the new LCU rules. Airpower may indeed be over-reved in the game in regards to Ground Attack....particularily where jungle and/or high entrenched positions are concerned. Unfortunately its not as simple as that because airpower is also a bit rigid in the game....and each "attack" only ever strikes one LCU at a time. If a hex only contains one strong unit....this isn't a problem (read: Hong Kong) However what if the hex contains 6 strong LCU?'s such as at Manila or Singapore? If they are well entrenched, even a force of 10+ strong LCU's on the attack is going to have one hell of a time rooting them out without suffer massive casualties as a result. This is where airpower comes in.

The rigidness has been relaxed a little by a code change that makes the following air attacks attack the LCU with the stronger assault rating (so no more only one LCU ever gets the axe as seen in UV) but unless multiple air attacks occur during the 1 day turn, you are still only going to see one LCU attacked (and disrupted)

So given that, i'm not sure if there really is an issue here of over-muscled air due to game engine limitations. Only time will tell. A test i did using historical forces at Buna-Gona without air support against a singular strong LCU (South Seas brigade) resulted in a bloody stalemate and no taken base after 60+ days of fighting. (and two shattered infantry divisions) (historical timeline was 2 months)

replaying the same battle with two BG's in support....the base was taken in 21 days of hard fighting. Airpower definately makes a huge difference...however what would have been the result had there been two strong LCU's there.....or three?

its a tricky question, particularily when you remember that "time pacing" wasn't just addressed here....but casualties as well. Ground combat overall is much bloodier than it was in UV. Because few have gotten very far into the game this facet hasn't really hit home much yet but it will....particularily for the Japanese who have very finite LCU resources. What good if you take an important or semi-important base if it also results in some of your best LCU's being so debilitated that they are out of commision for weeks or even months?

[WiTP_Dude]

Ground combat is too short? Not from my test so far. I've been playing the Rising Sun campaign on hard level against the AI and combat usually takes awhile. Hong Kong didn't fall until late December and it's been tough fighting in Malaya. It's now early March and I've got Singapore, Bataan, and Rangoon under seige. As long as the AI has supply these places should hold up for several more weeks.

[geozero]

I don't know... but Hong Kong fell for me as U.S. player in about 4 days, yet the first 2 days the Hong Kong garrison was doing quite nicely killing wave after wave of Japs (or so the intel reports said).

I even sent the 4 DD's on bombardment missions, lost 1 DD to airstrike.

Then sudeenly day 5 and Hong Kong surrenders, 3 DD's scuttled automatically. What the...

The only thing I can think of is the supply problems. I did not pay attention to this and certainly did not send any air supplies, etc. An army without ammon, food and water can not survive long...

and that's what happened to HK.

[SunDevil_MatrixForum]

I am having a hell of a time trying to take Saipan in the freaking tutorial scenario, so I think that ground combat is pretty tough. But then again, I am a newbie, but I would like hear from someone that actually was able to take Saipan in the Tutorial scenario to hear their strategy.

[Jim D Burns]

I stress again that most combat in the early campaign should be 2-1 to take the bases to simulate the surprise and unprepared condition of the Allies forces after Pearl Harbor, but Japan had been fighting the Chinese one on one for almost 5 years by the time the campaign scenario starts, and they had reached a point of stalemate.

Read some history on the fighting and you’ll learn that Japan had recently (within the last year or so I think) lost 2 mechanized divisions in China due to the fact they simply didn’t have enough troops to adequately protect any kind of an advance. The Chinese simply swarmed down out of the hills and surrounded the units when they advanced too far (if memory serves one advance was 12 miles).

China had turned out to simply be too large of a bite to chew and they had stalled out with no real hope of much more success. Given the overwhelming success of human players early in the game (whether playing against the AI or another human) in China, it is obvious that the land combat system doesn’t simulate actual ground combat in WWII well at all.

Every book I’ve ever read states 3-1 was the MINIMUM odds required for a possible successful attack in WWII, yet we see 2-1 as overwhelming victories in the game causing mass surrenders or retreats.

Jim

[Charles2222]

Granted the Germans were far more efficient at fighting than the Chinese, but hungry is hungry, doesn't matter what nationality you are. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect at least a month of fighting in your example, unless the Japanese had overwhelming (5-1 or better) force present. The Russians had about a 3-1 majority or better at Stalingrad, which was about the minimum odds needed to successfully attack in WWII.

Just wanted to bring up that minor point. There are other differences you didn't consider. The main one I think of is that being cut off in Stalingrad was being cut off in enemy territory, with promises of help on the way. The Chinese OTOH are cut off in 'home' territory.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I stress again that most combat in the early campaign should be 2-1 to take the bases to simulate the surprise and unprepared condition of the Allies forces after Pearl Harbor, but Japan had been fighting the Chinese one on one for almost 5 years by the time the campaign scenario starts, and they had reached a point of stalemate.

Only from a strategic standpoint. From the tactical standpoint they proved over and over that when they had the gumption, (such as during ICHI-GO in 44) they could kick Chinese tail left and right. The stalemate was strategical in that the country was too large for them to fully occupy and despite their tactical successes, the Chinese government refused to come to the baragaining table and negotiate a peace. Hence, all those troops were stuck there....most often with little to do but raid the countryside for food.

Every book I’ve ever read states 3-1 was the MINIMUM odds required for a possible successful attack in WWII, yet we see 2-1 as overwhelming victories in the game causing mass surrenders or retreats.

Its been said over and over again by the developers Jim. The land combat system in this game displays "modified odds", or in other words the final result after a myriad of adjustments and variables. You have to disabuse yourself of the systems used, alot of them by Gary Grigsby himself, in past games (War in Russia would be a great example) In this game the modified result must be a minimum 2:1 to achieve a breakthrough/victory/capture whatever.....unless the FORT level is >0 in which case IIRC you have to score modified odds > than 2:1 + the current FORT level. (example: fort level =1, requires a result of 3:1 to achieve victory.

Getting that modified result can be harder than you think. As mentioned i had the AI try to take HK unsuported with just the 38th Div. It did manage to bring the FORT level from 4 down to zero, but by that time it had suffered so many casaulties that it could not get the required 2:1 odds to acheive victory. Most 0:1, a couple 1:1's close but no cigar.

[TIMJOT]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

I stress again that most combat in the early campaign should be 2-1 to take the bases to simulate the surprise and unprepared condition of the Allies forces after Pearl Harbor, but Japan had been fighting the Chinese one on one for almost 5 years by the time the campaign scenario starts, and they had reached a point of stalemate.

With all due respect Jim. I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions. The war in China became stalemated because the IJA could not effectively garrison any more territory, coupled with the fact they had already conquered what it wanted. Further advance would not win the war because by this time the KMT refused to give battle and would simply melt away from any advance. Therefore in the game it should be relatively easy to push Chinese troops around. What should be difficult for the IJA player is maintaining control of additonal territory by the ever increasing garrison requirements.

Read some history on the fighting and you’ll learn that Japan had recently (within the last year or so I think) lost 2 mechanized divisions in China due to the fact they simply didn’t have enough troops to adequately protect any kind of an advance. The Chinese simply swarmed down out of the hills and surrounded the units when they advanced too far (if memory serves one advance was 12 miles).

Jim

I might suggest you read some "MORE" history. Since after this particular set back these same Chinese forces some 39 Divisions were enveloped and annihilated by the IJA at the battle of Hsu-Chou. In fact the IJA proved that it could advance almost at will throughout the war as demonstrated by their annual "Rice Offensives" and as late as the "Icho-Go" offensive in 1944.

Regards

[Mr.Frag]

You really need to learn all the modifiers for LCU combat.

Look at the Terrain modifier of the Defender.
Look at the Fortification of the Defender.
Look at the HQ modifiers for both sides.
Look at the Leader modifers for both sides.
Look at the Experience modifier for both sides.
Is the attack a Shock Attack or not?

Then and only then can you have a true understanding of LCU combat.

[SunDevil_MatrixForum]

Mr. Frag,

I am sure this is a stupid question, but the game is not running at the moment, where does a player see all these modifiers? I was never looking for them, I did not know most existed, but I do not recall seeing them either when my mouse hovered over the square box with an x in the middle either.

[Mr.Frag]

You don't *see* them, you learn what each does and attempt to maximize yours while minimizing theirs. It is a major part of the strategy of the game to understand how all these fit together to make your attacks a success or a failure.

[SunDevil_MatrixForum]

Ok, I will look at the ground combat section of the game manual again to see what type of modifiers ground units get. Thanks for the help.