Surrender routines. Please explain.

[moses]

What kind of odds are you getting? If you are unable to get the odds required to retreat them then that is a different issue and not a bug IMO. If you are getting 10 to 1 odds every turn and at the same time inflicting insignificant losses then I would consider that a bug.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: moses

What kind of odds are you getting? If you are unable to get the odds required to retreat them then that is a different issue and not a bug IMO. If you are getting 10 to 1 odds every turn and at the same time inflicting insignificant losses then I would consider that a bug.

OK, maybe it isn't a bug, but I've posted a couple of posts about how 100k Jpanaese attacking 75k Chinese in a Japanese base with full supply, and the Chinese completely surrounded for multiple weeks could result in 1:1 odds and losses of 4:1 in favor of the Chinese.

Maybe it isn't a bug - could you explain what I am doing wrong?

[Sneer]

or how surrrounded for few months outnumbered/outgunned chinase units inflict losses 4:1 against crack jap units when combat result is sth like 6-7:1 and attackers can't repeat attack on day2 because of 70+disruption and 15% loss of AV
how chinase stop 500+ tanks without any artillery?
how chinase withstand 3.5k artillery pieces having nothing to response ?
how can have defence organized after daily ( for months long) bombing by 300+ 2e bombers?
how it is possible that operation with such advantages is halted on day 1 and attacker is unable to attack on day 2 ?
how long can they fight 3 months without food/ammo /medicines ?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Sneer

or how surrrounded for few months outnumbered/outgunned chinase units inflict losses 4:1 against crack jap units when combat result is sth like 6-7:1 and attackers can't repeat attack on day2 because of 70+disruption and 15% loss of AV
how chinase stop 500+ tanks without any artillery?
how chinase withstand 3.5k artillery pieces having nothing to response ?
how can have defence organized after daily ( for months long) bombing by 300+ 2e bombers?
how it is possible that operation with such advantages is halted on day 1 and attacker is unable to attack on day 2 ?
how long can they fight 3 months without food/ammo /medicines ?

As an example, a small number of Australian troops on Timor did many of these things (not vs that number of tanks or artillery, although tanks would not be of as much use in jungle terrain) while being attacked by a Division or so of Japanese troops. They held out for several months. So it could and did happen, although it depends on the terrain. In clear terrain it should be a lot less likely, of course.

One thing I have a big problem with is that, in many cases, the land war in WitP moves much too fast already. The changes that people are asking for here could speed that aspect of the game dramatically, making things move a lot faster than they already are. Is that really a good idea?

I am not claiming that the land combat routines are perfect. Far from it. But you need to consider all consequences of any changes to the model.

Andrew

[Dereck]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
One thing I have a big problem with is that, in many cases, the land war in WitP moves much too fast already. The changes that people are asking for here could speed that aspect of the game dramatically, making things move a lot faster than they already are. Is that really a good idea?

Yeah it sure DOES move fast if it's the Japanese attacking the Allies who will retreat or surrender at 2:1 or 1:1 and greater odds but sure DOESN'T when you're the Allies later trying to fight the Japanese who stay put for months at 1000:1 and greater odds.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: Sneer

or how surrrounded for few months outnumbered/outgunned chinase units inflict losses 4:1 against crack jap units when combat result is sth like 6-7:1 and attackers can't repeat attack on day2 because of 70+disruption and 15% loss of AV
how chinase stop 500+ tanks without any artillery?
how chinase withstand 3.5k artillery pieces having nothing to response ?
how can have defence organized after daily ( for months long) bombing by 300+ 2e bombers?
how it is possible that operation with such advantages is halted on day 1 and attacker is unable to attack on day 2 ?
how long can they fight 3 months without food/ammo /medicines ?

As an example, a small number of Australian troops on Timor did many of these things (not vs that number of tanks or artillery, although tanks would not be of as much use in jungle terrain) while being attacked by a Division or so of Japanese troops. They held out for several months. So it could and did happen, although it depends on the terrain. In clear terrain it should be a lot less likely, of course.

One thing I have a big problem with is that, in many cases, the land war in WitP moves much too fast already. The changes that people are asking for here could speed that aspect of the game dramatically, making things move a lot faster than they already are. Is that really a good idea?

I am not claiming that the land combat routines are perfect. Far from it. But you need to consider all consequences of any changes to the model.

Andrew

My basic question is which extreme did the designers attempt? The early capitulation in a base hex with optimal supplies, morale, exp LCUs or the neverending story of a cut off unit without supplies recreating Tobruk on a daily basis? Or perhaps somewhere in the middle. To me, bases fall too easily and units in cut off and out of supply open hexes are too strong.

[Berkut]

The land war part of this game represents what is so damned hard about doing a credible job with the Pacific War. The scales just don't mesh well at all.

Much of the game (land war, invasions, land-based air operations) lend itself to a long scale turn sequence, of a week a turn or more.They take a long time, and are attritional in nature.

But the really interesteding part of the game, the naval fights, are NOT attritional, but are extremely decisive, sharp, and short duration encounters - often having decision cycles of hours, not days or weeks.

Melding the two is damned hard, and WitP has not done a great job in the attempt. I think the naval part is decent, as fara as the scale goes, but the rest of it doesn't feel right at all. Offensive operations take weeks of planning, for example. Most air strikes that went back and forth had minimal effect in and of themselves, and in most cases it took weeks of raids to see the results we see in a day or two.

And the actual land combat itself is simply attrocious. IMO, it should be more process driven, rather than event. Units should not be ordered to "attack" or defend as if attacking in the land war was some kind of discrete event witha discreete "win/lose" result after a single day, but rather a process, and any particulars days results may be more or less indicative of progress or failure. Plenty of days within an offensive effort (especially in this theater) should see almost no activity.

In other words, you shouldnt order your untis to "attack", you should set them inot an "offensive" stance, the results of which are dependent on a variety of other factors, liek the availability of supply, competency and agression of leaders, etc., etc.

[DeepSix]

ORIGINAL: Berkut
...
In other words, you shouldnt order your untis to "attack", you should set them inot an "offensive" stance, the results of which are dependent on a variety of other factors, liek the availability of supply, competency and agression of leaders, etc., etc.

I really like this idea. It was mentioned above that land combat moves too fast already, and as dereck says that may be true for the Japanese, but it screws the Allied player. What would happen if land turns were restricted? What I mean is, some land units don't move at all (Corregidor fort, for instance) and all air units have their transfer order button ghosted out for a turn once you've done that once -- so would it be possible to just lock out some of the orders options for land units for a period spanning multiple rounds once you've given them their orders?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker
My basic question is which extreme did the designers attempt? The early capitulation in a base hex with optimal supplies, morale, exp LCUs or the neverending story of a cut off unit without supplies recreating Tobruk on a daily basis?

Good question. And the problem is that both extremes occurred in the real war. For example, the surrender of Singapore (quick capitulation of troops at a "base") and the Timor example I provide above, not to mention the many weeks it took to clear most islands of Japanse defenders.

Whatever combat system is used in WitP has to try to handle this very wide range of potential results. Not an easy thing to do.

Or perhaps somewhere in the middle. To me, bases fall too easily and units in cut off and out of supply open hexes are too strong.

You may be right. And I don't think that there should be such a wide difference between units in bases and units not in bases. However I don't want the system changed so that attackers can walk into a new hex one day, then wipe out all enemy forces from 3,600 square mile of jungle on the next day.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: dereck
Yeah it sure DOES move fast if it's the Japanese attacking the Allies who will retreat or surrender at 2:1 or 1:1 and greater odds but sure DOESN'T when you're the Allies later trying to fight the Japanese who stay put for months at 1000:1 and greater odds.

The example given at the top of this thread is of a Chinese (i.e. Allied) unit that was surrounded and not surrendering.

However I am aware that Japanese units that are surrounded can be very hard to kill. On that subject, I remember you commenting on this in another thread, regarding your invassion of a Japanese held island in a game. Did you ever finish that battle, and do you have the final figures as to how long it took and how many casualties were taken on both sides?

[Sneer]

all my problems were not in jungle where heavy equipment is difficult to use but on clear hexes
also I can doubt if Japanese division on Timor was adequately supplies - my troops had perfect supply and easy terrain

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Berkut

The land war part of this game represents what is so damned hard about doing a credible job with the Pacific War. The scales just don't mesh well at all.

Much of the game (land war, invasions, land-based air operations) lend itself to a long scale turn sequence, of a week a turn or more.They take a long time, and are attritional in nature.

But the really interesteding part of the game, the naval fights, are NOT attritional, but are extremely decisive, sharp, and short duration encounters - often having decision cycles of hours, not days or weeks.

Melding the two is damned hard, and WitP has not done a great job in the attempt. I think the naval part is decent, as fara as the scale goes, but the rest of it doesn't feel right at all. Offensive operations take weeks of planning, for example. Most air strikes that went back and forth had minimal effect in and of themselves, and in most cases it took weeks of raids to see the results we see in a day or two.

And the actual land combat itself is simply attrocious. IMO, it should be more process driven, rather than event. Units should not be ordered to "attack" or defend as if attacking in the land war was some kind of discrete event witha discreete "win/lose" result after a single day, but rather a process, and any particulars days results may be more or less indicative of progress or failure. Plenty of days within an offensive effort (especially in this theater) should see almost no activity.

In other words, you shouldnt order your untis to "attack", you should set them inot an "offensive" stance, the results of which are dependent on a variety of other factors, liek the availability of supply, competency and agression of leaders, etc., etc.

Just some ramblings from the peanut gallery...

I've been having a nagging feeling that the game's scale is out of whack ...such that the designers gave us tactical toys for use on an operational/strategic map.

Perhaps if they want to keep the tactical feel for WitP II, 10-20mile hexes should be looked at. I haven't given much consideration to scale yet but I'm sure a functional number could be arrived at. 60 miles/hex is too large for a tactical or even operational game as far as land combat goes....perhaps even naval.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Sneer
all my problems were not in jungle where heavy equipment is difficult to use but on clear hexes

Yes. And as I already stated I also don't think that units should be able to defend in clear hexes as easily as they should in jungle (or mountain etc.) hexes. However I don't want to have the opposite occur, with units in Jungle hexes being routinely and easily defeated in a day or two.

also I can doubt if Japanese division on Timor was adequately supplies

Do you have any evidence to support that?

Andrew

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: treespider
Just some ramblings from the peanut gallery...

I've been having a nagging feeling that the game's scale is out of whack ...such that the designers gave us tactical toys for use on an operational/strategic map.

It does seem that the land combat system was designed with island battles in mind, not grand land campaigns.

Another issue is stacking limits. I am now reading AARs where a player is committing 700,000 troops in a single 60 mile wide hex. Those must be division frontages that make the Somme in WW1 look positively roomy.

[Sneer]

attacking stacks when defender stacks

[dtravel]

Perhaps someone in the design team forgot the difference between "cleaning up unorganized holdouts and stragglers in odd corners" and "fighting an enemy with an intact command structure"? Just because garrison troops were still shooting individual enemy soldiers six months after the landing does not mean that there is any chance of said enemy regaining control of the area.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: Sneer

attacking stacks when defender stacks

True enough. Stacking limits, if implemented, should of course apply to both sides.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

Perhaps someone in the design team forgot the difference between "cleaning up unorganized holdouts and stragglers in odd corners" and "fighting an enemy with an intact command structure"?

Are you saying that the Australian units fighting in Timor didn't have a command structure? I disagree.

Just because garrison troops were still shooting individual enemy soldiers six months after the landing does not mean that there is any chance of said enemy regaining control of the area.

Perhaps. But I am not talking about a few individual soldiers. I am talking about units that are still to be completely defeated, albeit small ones.

You raise a good point about hex control though, and that is another apect of the land combat model that sometimes seems a bit odd. To me it doesn't seem reasonable that a few squads, either "holdouts" or landed from a submarine, should be able to establish control over an entire hex. Maybe a change to that part of the model would reduce the need to wipe out the last remnants of every surrounded defending force. instead, they could be left to rot, neutralised with a small garrison. Again this is an example of how these various rules intersect in their effect.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


You raise a good point about hex control though, and that is another apect of the land combat model that sometimes seems a bit odd. To me it doesn't seem reasonable that a few squads, either "holdouts" or landed from a submarine, should be able to establish control over an entire hex. Maybe a change to that part of the model would reduce the need to wipe out the last remnants of every surrounded defending force. instead, they could be left to rot, neutralised with a small garrison. Again this is an example of how these various rules intersect in their effect.

Depending on the type of hex it maybe difficult for a division to establish "control" over a 3600 sq/mile hex....




On a side note what is the actual area of a hexagon 60 miles across? Is it 3600 sq/miles? I'm too lazy to do the geometry.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: treespider
On a side note what is the actual area of a hexagon 60 miles across? Is it 3600 sq/miles? I'm too lazy to do the geometry.

Interesting question. I am also interested to know, but equally lazy...

By the way, the WitP map hexagons are not true hexagons - they are stretched in the vertical by about 5%.