Japanese grand strategy

[moses]

The defender has the edge unless he's forced to retreat.

There ya go. Its the retreats that that throw things out of whack. Retreat in the game essentially means a rout. Units which are retreated are effectively combat ineffective for a long period of time. At the scale of this game that is not right.

Once the battle reaches a point where the forces are closely matched evrything works fine. The problem comes when you have mismatches. Obviosly the weaker side should lose the battle but some attacker losses should result which allow the weaker side to wear down the attacker.

In China you have to wonder why most of the experienced players council not defending the first line of cities very strongly and basically doing a fairly rapid withdrawl form the front. This non-historical strategy is required because it is difficult for China to match up with Japan initially and so every battle ends with a Chinese retreat and the loss of effectivness of the units. If these retreats were not so devastating and if the attackers took a few losses in these initial battles the front would be much more balanced.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

MOGAMI.....Again I ask you in how many of your games are you playing the Allies?
You are a gentleman with a reasonable and historical approach to the game, so I
would be suprised to see you making use of the "loopholes". And in any game
where you ARE playing the Allies, is your opponant a gentleman such as yourself...,
or a "win at any cost" gamer? That would be your only chance of coming into con-
tact with the problems.

Hi Jan 1942 Japan has taken Palymra and Christmas Islands. KB hung around PH for 10 days. Japanese landed at Mersing, Japanese have advanced deep into central China
(by passed Changsha) Paras droped deep in north Rabaul taken, Still fighting at Yenen
Allies hold Clark but pushed back into Singapore
POW and Repulse sank 2 IJN CA in surface battle Balikapapn early Dec 41
Very aggressive Japanese player but not doing anything I consider exploit as he covered landings with CV.
I damaged 2 IJN CV off PH but do not know extent. 1 USN CV damaged by Japanese submarine.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: moses

The defender has the edge unless he's forced to retreat.

There ya go. Its the retreats that that throw things out of whack. Retreat in the game essentially means a rout. Units which are retreated are effectively combat ineffective for a long period of time. At the scale of this game that is not right.

Once the battle reaches a point where the forces are closely matched evrything works fine. The problem comes when you have mismatches. Obviosly the weaker side should lose the battle but some attacker losses should result which allow the weaker side to wear down the attacker.

Not exactly. In Burma i had a good numerical advantage and that along with the air attacks began to tell. The key was not in the numbers but in my opponent's timing which avoided being forced into a retreat. (often in my games at least....small numbers of defenders in the right terrain anf forts can hold off much larger forces)

This kept his forces intact and more importantly, in supply. My next test will be to see just how badly the defender, or should i say more accurately "retreater" since i've had advancing forces shock attacked and forced back, suffers in varioius situations in terms of destroyed equipment.

I must admit to some embarassement on this part. I conducted the tests that led to an executible change in terms of land combat but my focus at the time was in overall "pace" so i had carefully monitored disruption levels, fatigue, modifed odds results and overall condition of the LCU's in terms of fighting assault value. In doing all that counting the actual number of squads and equipment destroyed passed under the radar and i didn't realize so few were being actually killed when the units remained static.

for example the test i ran, using a modified Japanese division of 500 squads + lots of equipment against an unmodifed US RCT regiment consisted of a six day assault using a mixture of both shock and deliberate attacks. Both units had identical exp, morale and leaders and a jungle hex was used with zero forts but with the defender at 100 preperation. From previous tests i knew the IJA Division would fail with no preperation and that it did, getting 0-1 results each time.

After six days of this the division was operationally destroyed with 95% of it's equipment and squads disabled and an assault value that would have embarrassed a Dutch BN.

However in terms of destroyed.....only 70 Japanese squads out of 500 were destroyed, the rest were disabled. Even more suprising, the US regiment hadn't suffered any losses at all....only disablements.

Most of the destroyed squads and the few guns destroyed came from the shock attacks which had casualties in the 2000's listed.

[moses]

Thank you very much for running these tests. [:D] This is the kind of answer that I've been trying to get to.

I understand the need for abstraction in a game. So in most situations I don't get all that worried about disabled vs killed. But the retreat battles are just too much. In running tests in China and Russia I have been struck by the almost total lack of killed Japanese in the initial phases of the battle. Also in island battles where the attacker has clear superiority the attacker can in many cases take the island for free.

I think a small change to correct this problem would greatly alliviate problems with ground combat in the game.

I hope you will continue to look at this and I would be very interested to see your results.

[herbieh]

I tried the darwin gambit very early
Sent 4 divisions covered by all tha carriers charging into the torress straight, objectives:
Force enemy CVs into battle
early capture of Darwin, PM Gilli Gilli and Lunga, thinking that will really cut off DEI
The plan worked-------to an extent

But those 4 Divisions really should have gone to the Phillipines, It was such a mistake that even though I sunk 3 CVs in January 42 we have agreed to a restart.
No way I could sustain those troops...........
And the phillipines and Borneo, and DEI and , and and and remained unconquered.

Last time IM trying something stupid like that
Next time its the MOGAMI METHOD, aircover, sea cover and support for everything....

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: moses

I don't think anyone has said that the game is broken. I don't think that the game problems that have been raised in this thread result from the use of loopholes or from ungentlemanly play.

In world war II infantry combat the defender had an advantage. It was possible for a defending force to fight a delay inflicting casualties on an attacker while gradually wearing him down. One would expect this to be possible in the game. But try and fight a delay in Burma or China.

In Burma for example: It should be possible to have a bde defend a hex against a divisional Japanese force. The hope would not be to stop Japan but to fight, inflict some casualties, buy some time, and then withdraw to the next defensive position. Try this in the game. Your brigade will be crushed in one turn. You will have lost in the range of 25-30 % casualties and your morale will be reduced greatly. The Japanese will lose absolutly nothing or at best a squad or two. Kill ratio's by the attacker of 100-1 are normal.

A delaying action is therefore almost impossible to conduct which directly causes the problems that have been noted in the large land theaters. Combat is far too decisive and quick. Its a winner take all system which seems more appropriate to a game which simulates ancient warfare than a game of WWII.

I have simply suggested that by shifting the balance slightly in the direction of the defender you might very well correct the problems with land combat in the game. Preferably this would require a SLIGHT increase in actual kills to the attacker and some change to increase the attackers supply requirements or decrease their supply.

MOSES.....And all I am saying is that if you can do in the game what you could not to
in reality, the rules/system has a "loophole". It doesn't matter if it's something as
blatent as being able to smash the Russians by taking advantage of a poor deployment
your opponant has no control over----or a "glitch" in the combat system that allows
the Japanese to make a dozen low-odds, high support "attacks" at 1:10 or 1:20 odds
and inflicting hundreds of casualties every time while suffering NONE ( that's zero, nada,
ziltch). You point out that "delaying tactics" don't work, but it's even worse in that they
often actually "speed up" the attacker by allowing a 60-mile jump of pursuit.

Maybe we don't agree on what to call the problems, but we both agree that there are
problems. I call them loopholes because they are exploits of areas in the design that
the designers didn't anticipate (at least I want to believe they didn't anticipate them---
if they thought this was really the way things happened, that's a totally different prob-
lem). It's a huge project, and 2by3 has limited resources, so loopholes were inev-
itable..., but this reluctance to close them as they are discovered, or to somehow
excuse or gloss them over, is a real dissappointment. And saying "fix it with the editor"
is just a cop out. If you buy a car that doesn't run, you take it back to the dealer and
ask that it be repaired or replaced with a working model.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: Mogami


Japan actually does better to protect the SRA from airfields out of range of Darwin and Broome. (where IJN bombers can reach Allied TF but their airfields are out of range)

Northern Oz does not require the USN to even particapte.

[ BTW - Now we're talking Japanese Grand Strategy !!! ]

If the Japanese try to "defend" the SRA from airfields out of range of Darwin and Broome there still needs to be enough troops at all the bases within Fast Transport range to prevent an Allied Amphib offensive via Fast Transport. And that is quite a lot of troops ... saying a division on each base or dot ... otherwise the Allies come into all the bases they can and buildup air bases to cover the next lunge forward ... repeating every 3-4 months until the SRA is taken [ I've done this in the old WITP board game ... called it "attack by the bug Navy" ] ... and it looks possible in this version.

Removing the non-existent rail from the Northern Australian area would help ... Andy Brown is doing this ... and maybe that fixes the problem ... but Andy's reverse engineering of the data files isn't proven yet - and so can't be considered the final definitive version of the game ... but I assume he wouldn't be spending most of his waking hours working on this if 2x3/Matrix had said they would do it ...


So right now I'm with Blackvoid ... take NW Oz and while not trying to hold for ever and ever ... at least delay build up as long as possible ... the IJN Carriers should NOT be committed to this delaying action ( after the taking is done ) unless the USN are here as well ... the IJN Carriers must be used as Fleet In Being versus the USN after the initial "wild period" is done ...

[mogami]

Hi, Mike please don't misquote me.
"Fix it with the editor" refers to where problems exist with OOB. Someone does not agree that the 3rd Underwater bicycle Bn had 5x900mm mortars. Rather then post a complaint they should just edit the data to what they agree with.

Now where problems with formulas or codes are posted I never say fix it with the editor.
My standard response is
"I can't change code, you've posted your problem it's up to Mike"

You don't need me to agree to problems like this. Kid and now Mr Frag collect all this and take it behind the door and they go over it.

My personal opinion is that I don't have an issue but no one in my PBEM attacks with engineer only.

I don't attack China. I would not attack China no matter how system or OB changed.
I only commence operations in China in response to Chinese actions. So when he thinks he is ready I counter his actions. I attempt to clear him off the RR. Thats it.
As China I hold my supply cities and retreat towards my supply.

I think overwhelming odds are known as overwhelming odds because the result of encountering them is the weaker side is overwhelmed. Little loss to the attack and a hurt to the defender.

Dadman still holds Clark in Apr 42
Svient still holds Yenen in June 42 (and Batavia)
Lee Whatley still holds Clark and Singapore in Apr 42
Kereguen is still in Java and Sumatra and Rangoon in Apr 42
The only person I have taken the entire SRA from by Apr 42 is Brady and he ran away.

THe 50 to 1 loss ratio in ground units is not because the system is screwed up but because the Allied units eventually run out of places to run to. Then they surrender.
The KIA and DIA (disabled in action) are pretty even up to when the Allied units surrender.
Of course supply matters. Japanese units recover faster because the Japanese player normally controls the surrounding area and so he has better supply. Surplus supply is what recovers units and replaces loss.
On Atolls it is the same. The attacker suffers greater intial disruption and loss but then the comabt ratio results in defenders surrender. If the first assault fails normally the landing fails. either you pick up the unit or the defender will wipe it out.

In China I think it is almost totally tied to supply.

In left side of unit menu you see
supplies
supplies required

when supplies is below supplies required the unit no longer fights at 100 percent. (by 100percent I mean the number the code would produce based on number of squads, morale, experiance. leadership, terrian
If you have 50 supplies and require 100 the combat number is halved.

So what happens is the Japanese advance to contact. They encounter Chinese units that are in supply and have the required amount.
But.... The Japanese maintain this required amount (or exceed it) while the Chinese drop below it.
Now the Chinese begin to lose more and inflict less.

It is not exclusivley a problem found in China. In the SRA only at Bataan or in PI after much time do you see it and in Burma. Both these take a while. In China the Chinese player firing arty every turn can bring it about. He thinks he has better then 1-1 odds and is safe from attack and then the Japanese attack and reduce forts and don't suffer any loss. But it is because the Chinese units have lost "combat effectivness" due to low supply.

Any way thats what I encounter. As always I don't use examples against AI.
I don't really care if players use the so called exploits I don't restrict PBEM at all after turn 1 and then the only restriction is PH.

If the Japanese (or Allies) bring "Overwhelming" force. The defender is going to be overwhelmed. Where the defender has even forces he does quite well.

It is not the games fault if
1. One side trys to stand against a much larger force
2. A player ignores the effect of supply

This does not mean the system does not need adjustments. I only wish to insure we don't adjust the game without accounting for the results produced in the above examples.

A retreat forced as a result from combat is not the same as a retreat made before the enemy over runs your position. Once combat forces you out it is too late to withdraw supply.

Have you really seen a unit pursue 60 miles? (I thought the upper limit was a tank unit could advance 30 miles but it was unsafe to do this if the enemy retreted into a hex where he had units waiting)

Check out some of these games. It is very rare to see a hex where a battle is taking place that has units covering the flanks and rear. I surround stacks quite often because there is nothing there to prevent it.
My stacks have units in the hex behind and often units in every hex back to where I am tracing my supply from.

But we don't debate in the forum to effect change. All you need to do for that is post your problem. Frag finds it and it's looked at.
I'm here because I play not because I want to change or not change the game. I don't think it needs "much" changing in this regard.
If I had a problem playing I would have posted in to Frag. I like it when problems are fixed.

[moses]

Mike Scholl: Then we agree on the big picture. The post by Nikademus shows that there is something there to what I've been saying and at least someone is looking at it.

The reason I don't like the term loophole or exploit is that it plays into the cop out that you describe. It allows people to say that if people would just play fair or play historically then everything would be fine. "Its all the players fault for doing things in ways their not supposed to." or " If people do non-historical things then they have no right to complain when the results are silly"

The problem is the things I am describing are just attacks. You can't play the game without moving a stack into an enemy stack and attacking. If you retreat the enemy thats not a loophole thats a normal game result and its messed up.

Still now that I know that someone is looking at this mathematically I have some confidance that adjustments will be made to fix it.

[mogami]

Hi, It has been looked at since before this debate began. The tests Nik detailed in the above post were what led to the current system.

[moses]

Mogami:

He says he's doing them now. "my next test will be..."

He's going to look at the retreats and I'm pretty sure what he's going to find. I really think when you look at the numbers there is a glaring problem. In any event we will see what he comes up with. I may do a test myself just for amusment.

When the attacker starts taking casualties then the supply problem may take care of itself. I noticed in my China game at the start I was swimming in supply. I was taking no casualties and so who needs supply!!
Once I was in Chungking I got in a hurry and began immediately trying to take the city. (It was stupid to do so but its a test game so I experiment a little) After 7 or 8 attacks a couple of which inflicted over 10,000 casualties I started actually lossing squads for the first time. Lo and behold my supply levels started to drop.

So the good news is that a small tweak to attacker casualties may be all that is needed. On the other hand Nikademis may provide a short analytical answer as to why the casualties look wierd but why its reallly not a problem in the game. I would be happy with that as well[:D]

[Tophat]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, It has been looked at since before this debate began. The tests Nik detailed in the above post were what led to the current system.

Yes,yes,yes.....but all moses has been saying is that the "attacker" isn't getting men killed in anything like a proportional manner in relation to the defender!!!!!!!
Niko has now looked at things with this premise in mind and said:"wow,that didn't occur to me when I was testing the changes"

Now he is looking at thgis and wonder of wonders.....something might,repeat might be done to correct this!

What I don't understand is how so many people can look and read a thread......then totally misunderstand what the issue being discussed is!

Good job moses!

[mogami]

Hi, OK as long as we all understand that we are after the same thing. A valid combat system.
My concern is that we establish just what is happening. I don't want combats used as examples when the results are not a product of the combat system but instead are the combat situation. I know I have not been too clear.

What I mean is cases where both sides are prepared to fight comapred to cases where one side is not in condition to fight but does so in disregard.

Beleive me we have been looking at this for a long time. If I was allowed to post from the test forum you would see that China and the combat system in general has long been on our minds.

Everyone should understand the Operational asspects of WITP have priority to tactical.

The game attempts to produce results from the stand point of
1. Impact of supply
2. Impact of unit condition (morale,experiance, physical condition,leadership)

There is no attempt to specifically decide flank attacks or anything.
Combat ratios and supply status are paramount.

To produce an actual VP award from a specific unit 6 items have to be destroyed.
Suppose 5 Div with 200 Squads each take part in combat. The result divided among the units is not enough to actually kill a squad per division so squads are disabled instead. Supply will be required to bring the squad to active use. (not rebuild from scracth that requires supply and manpower and in somecases specific items of equipment)
These disabled squads only require replacement troops to get them back (supply)

Or a disabled gun is a gun that is still useable except for not having enough crew.
Troops are being lost but not enough to destroy an item from TOE but enough to make it lose combat effectivness. (but this gun will be among the first lost if unit retreats and here it is in fact destroyed)

Manpower is used to create new units (items in TOE) Supply is used to represent replacements. (supply equal to load value of item to be replaced)

Part of every structure is replacement system.

When units have been in combat where this replacement supply does not exist then actual units begin being destroyed from TOE.

At combat ratios above 2-1 items are more often actually destroyed so the defending units show actaul loss. While the attackers only get disabled. Shock attacks that produce less then 1-1 ratios result in attacking units showing actual loss (A squad is detroyed instead of loseing men rendering it combat ineffective but still in existence and able to recover when replacements (supply) are consumed.

I'm fumbling trying to explain it.
In side a combat formation are other formations (squads) To produce the loss of a single squad the combat result has to kill enough from every unit engaged that when divided among these units is over 1 squad in size.
(200 squads in a div is around 4000 infantry? or 20 men per squad So a result that claims 200 men killed when divided among the 200 squads would not kill any squad (it is only 1 man per squad.) To kill a squad you would need to kill 3801 men.
If the Division has supply it recovers a portion every turn and thus never shows any actual loss in size but is in fact consuming replacements.

If the unit suffers 3801 in accumulated combats and has no supply it will reach a point where dramatic loss occurs.
1st battle 500 men
2nd battle 1000 men
3rd battle 2300 men
up to this point no actual squad reduction only disabled
4 battle and later squads begin to be destroyed and ratios are worse so more loss (it snowballs)
A unit with a surplus of supply would still be healthy.

So there are Operationally speaking 2 kinds of replacement troops.
1. Where a TOE item has to be replaced
2. Where a TOE item has to be repaired. repair to an infantry squad means add a soldiers to a squad that still exists. (supply)

Am I confusing the issue more?

I think the problem is that the system is not awarding VP for every 6 items repaired by using supply. So it appears no combat loss is taking place.

If the system awarded 1 VP for every 6 supply consumed for repair (because it does not track which squad has been repaired using just 1 supply) Then it would be doing what it is supposed to do. I think it is working but not awarding the VP.

[medicff]

So with that explaination. What is well supplied? 2X base supplies needed? Each individual unit as supplies needed?

Let's say with bombardments or idle a brigade needs 350 supplies it has 340 avail will they keep up.

After a deliberate attack/defense turn now they need 850 supplies, does this represent what is needed to bring all undisabled? What happens if this turn they are short, but next turn they make up. How long to replace all the disable squads/equipment - seems very slow as china. Seems very fast at large supply bases >100k especially with Area HQ.

What I mean is in China as the allies, the squads rarely undisable once they get that way. And sometimes even though the base has more supply (not double, just more than needs) the individual units still have less than needed supply.

So the key to China would be -
Keep at least needed supplies in bases? or
Keep at least 2X needed supplies in bases? or
something else.

This magnifies the problems of when retreated losing all supplies and having such a huge loss.

Thanks for explaination, Pat

[moses]

THe 50 to 1 loss ratio in ground units is not because the system is screwed up but because the Allied units eventually run out of places to run to.

Here's where we are just looking at diferent facts. I see better than 50 to 1 losses pretty much every single time that a reletivily fresh force retreats an enemy force. It appears to be much worse than this. Its really very heavy loss (25-30%) killed vs. no loss to the attacker.

It works both ways. In China I really think the best Chinese defense is based quite heavily on the shock attack. Once allied players realize this the theater may be balanced by this realization alone. Say 6 Japanese divisions advance into Changsa where I have amased 15 Chinese Corps. I shock attack and the result will be tons of dead Japanese. The Chinese will not lose a squad. Here again I agree that the Chinese should win the battle. It is the lopsided casualty results which bother me.

In the island battle the same thing seems to be happening. (Although I have not tested this as much) Every battle should be at odds greatly favoring the attacker. But that should not mean that the attacker should take zero losses. Because he takes no losses, he needs not nearly as much supply and he does not need to pause for his units to recover.

The same should occur later in the game as the allies advance. The allies will not have to worry about losses because they will take very few.

Hopefully this will all be cleared up with a few tests and we will see. Perhaps I am just looking at things incorrectly.

No offense. I'm not trying to be difficult and I generally enjoy reading your posts as I think most do on the board. I get a little excited at times and post quickly so if I seem angry at times I apologize. e-mail is a dangerous medium sometimes. [:)]

[Tophat]

Being an attacker and only having units disabled,not lost,then regaining those disabled subunits/squads quickly is allowing the "attacker" to maintain an offensive far longer than should be possible.

That basically is what moses was pointing us to and is correct where the attacker has numerical and qualitative superiority. Where its closer to even odds the combat model is working alright. Its the retreats<loss of moral&equitment+disruption>that is rendering ineffective the defenders while doing next to nothing to show wear and tear of the attacker.

Ok,I understand the difference between an operational and tactical game....can we please stop using this canard? When you can group several divisions and support units<arty&Engineers>then put a bums rush on the enemy and advance 100's of miles it becomes an Operationa/strategic.....not tactical problem.

Whats needed:
Losses to the attacker......squads+equitment so that time and supply are needed to refit units after periods of combat. End result,the "game" is slowed down to a more historical pace and its not a 4 month sprint to victory as the japanese.
Also,I'm getting somewhat concerned that OOb changes,put in to solve or balance the combat imbalance are going to cause more trouble than trying to "fix" the combat system will!

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: medicff

So with that explaination. What is well supplied? 2X base supplies needed? Each individual unit as supplies needed?

Let's say with bombardments or idle a brigade needs 350 supplies it has 340 avail will they keep up.

After a deliberate attack/defense turn now they need 850 supplies, does this represent what is needed to bring all undisabled? What happens if this turn they are short, but next turn they make up. How long to replace all the disable squads/equipment - seems very slow as china. Seems very fast at large supply bases >100k especially with Area HQ.

What I mean is in China as the allies, the squads rarely undisable once they get that way. And sometimes even though the base has more supply (not double, just more than needs) the individual units still have less than needed supply.

So the key to China would be -
Keep at least needed supplies in bases? or
Keep at least 2X needed supplies in bases? or
something else.

This magnifies the problems of when retreated losing all supplies and having such a huge loss.

Thanks for explaination, Pat

Hi, There are several uses for supply
In unit menu you see on left side
suppies
supplies required

If the unit does not move or engage in combat it will consume the required supply (I think it is monthy)
This supply has to be present or unit will fight at reduced strength and not recover from combat (or movement)

Combat uses supply over and above this. It has to be present in the hex (or drawn into the hex over a supply line)
Recovery and replacement supply has to be in the hex (or drawn into the hex over a supply line)

A base that is in the red for supply will not provide supply for combat or recovery.

[tsimmonds]

Combat uses supply over and above this. It has to be present in the hex (or drawn into the hex over a supply line)
Recovery and replacement supply has to be in the hex (or drawn into the hex over a supply line)

Just to be asolutely clear, you are saying that at the instant supply is needed for this purpose, if it is not present in the hex, it will be drawn from some other supply source that is in range. Is this correct?

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: Tophat

Being an attacker and only having units disabled,not lost,then regaining those disabled subunits/squads quickly is allowing the "attacker" to maintain an offensive far longer than should be possible.

That basically is what moses was pointing us to and is correct where the attacker has numerical and qualitative superiority. Where its closer to even odds the combat model is working alright. Its the retreats<loss of moral&equitment+disruption>that is rendering ineffective the defenders while doing next to nothing to show wear and tear of the attacker.

Ok,I understand the difference between an operational and tactical game....can we please stop using this canard? When you can group several divisions and support units<arty&Engineers>then put a bums rush on the enemy and advance 100's of miles it becomes an Operationa/strategic.....not tactical problem.

Whats needed:
Losses to the attacker......squads+equitment so that time and supply are needed to refit units after periods of combat. End result,the "game" is slowed down to a more historical pace and its not a 4 month sprint to victory as the japanese.
Also,I'm getting somewhat concerned that OOb changes,put in to solve or balance the combat imbalance are going to cause more trouble than trying to "fix" the combat system will!

Hi, Read my post again. I think the attacker is losing men. I don't think it is being recorded. The loss is in supply used to replace the men killed. So if the attacker does have a supply surplus then this represents his also having a large replacement pool. These replacements are being issued but the VP are not.

[medicff]

So anything over attempts to replace/undisable? Is there a limit to how fast? Meaning if I dumped 100k next to 50/100 units I could expect them to go to 100/100 in a day, a week, or a month. What are the other factors, malaria, HQ, etc?