Japanese grand strategy

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: moses

The problem occurs with any retreat. Keep in mind that as Mogami says "this is an operational level game." I think that a retreat at this level need not always be a rout.

A retreat should in most cases be thought of as the attacker has taken a key position which compells the defender to pull back to the next appropriate defence position. The defender pulls back in an organized manner over a period of days with minimal loss of equipment/supplies. Certainly there were many instances where a rout was literally what happened. But where large formations are concerned the most reasonable way to view a retreat is as I have stated above.

Maybe a morale check could be used to decide if a unit routs or simply pulls back. Should be based on morale and size of unit. (a small unit in 60 miles of space can be more easily flanked or bypassed then 5 Divisions)

The problem with a view like this though is that it is another example of padding the player decision process in a saftey net. I view this in the same vein as the request to auto retreat air groups when a base falls. rout vs orderly retreat should largely be a factor of player strategy. A player can often see clearly when his defence begins to crumble and does have the capability to retreat volunterily before being "Thrown out" of a hex thus avoiding the bulk of the fobiles being complained about here. My opponent has done this many times in our game. Only in jungle hexes or other constricted terrain is this almost impossible to do but thats the nature of jungle fighting

Also, i havn't seen evidence yet that ALL retreats are rout situations. I've been forced back several times in my game...my units have not been "routed" by this though they have shown the effects. Thats what i want to isolate next....when/where/how much happens with a retreat and how many "retreats" lead to the permanent wrecking of the LCU.

[moses]

I just happy that its being looked at and if no changes can be made so be it. I do think that you should consider that the problem may be quite amplified as players get into the allied offensives starting in 43-45. There I would expect almost every land battle to be fought at very high odds.

I don't think anything is broken but was frankly shocked when I was able to conquer Russia without loss of but a few squads. And when I looked at my troops in chungking after a three month campaign at 100% strength I was shocked again.

Perhaps a small change could fix the problem. Anyway thanks for addressing the issue head-on and I'll trust you guys to do your thing. [:)]

[mogami]

Hi, The nature of the retreat is easy to see.
The defender retreats when the attacker has 2 to 1 odds.
The attacker needs increased odd of 1 to 1 for each level of defending forts.

So if the ratio is 2 to 1 no fort the defender retreats
Now compare his loss to when the retreat is a result of 3 to 1 odds 4 to 1 odds and so on. The higher the attacking ratio the more the defender loss.

Bear in mind that 4-1 odds against a level 2 fort will produce a retreat but defesners loss will be what he would get if that battle had been 2 to 1 with no forts. The fort levels while they might be destroyed absorb the extra loss.
However if you have already been forced to retreat and the enemy enters the hex and attacks then the ratios are much higher and the loss increased.

There is a very simple method of preventing this.
Behind eavry stack engaged in combat place a combat unit and dig in with it.
Then when your force retreats onto it and the enemy follows he might get the 4 to 1 odds again and force another retreat but these forts will absorb part of the loss.

I'll be honest. I did not understand this discussion fully untill last night when it dawned on me players were not counting supply as a combat loss because it was not being recorded as VP.
The debate became intertwined with China over all. I did not understand
1. Why results there were so different then mine
2. How players were doing it without losing VP.

I have not been a nuts and bolts case specific tester for some time now. I test via PBEM to insure the game is working and not ruined by variuos bugs (I know bugs exist I'm looking for ones I can catch and recreate)
Among my opponents are several former testers. I can't bamboozle them with BS (I want it that way)
Others are from UV days. We know each other and can ask questions without offense.
Then I am playing a few folks that are new to both me and WITP. This is so I can get a feel for how new players...well play. Also any problems they might have.

Now to the point.

I have 6 games as Japan. I use the same basic plan in all of them. (I don't want to be the reasons for 1 game having problems another does not) I use the same style in all of them.
In 3 games China is holding Yenen. China is holding Changsha.
In these games it ccuered to me last night that I had sent no supply to China.

Against 3 players I pretty much own the RR now. In all 3 of these I have sent an abundance of supply to China. (In the game I caused the most damage to Chinese I sent so much supply that operations outside of China had to be halted)

Yet in VP the Chinese in these games have scored no more points then in the games where the Chinese are holding.

Thats when I saw the light.

Because I know how much more these 3 games have cost me. But my units are still healthy. (I needed to rest them in rear areas from time to time between capturing cities)
Same in PI. I was making no progress against Dadman. So I withdrew units from Manila to Naga. Moved 50k supply there. In a few weeks the units went from 50/100 to back to 100/100 supply was down to 35k (but Naga drew supply from Legaspi as well)
I went back to Manila and captured it. (The Allied units there had been losing along with me but they had no chance to regain strength.) So without any replacement VP I recovered my units.

Thinking of that made the connection between Moses and myselfs different views.
All along I knew I was losing forces. But it is not being reflected in the scores.
I don't pay attention to scores that often (I post them once in a while but I don't think about them)


Why attacking units begin to lose squads

Suppose a unit advances to combat with 100 squads 10 of them disabled.
In first battle 10 more are disable but during the night 5 are repaired (5 of the 10 that began disabled)
The next day the attacker has 85 squads.
Now most players after an attack rest for a day or two.
So day 1 90 squads attack
Day 2 85 (15 disabled)rest
Day 3 90 sqd (10 disabled) rest
Day 4 95 sqd (5 disabled) attack

If the defender had supply then he too will have recovered
If not then without any more troops entering the battle the attack is stronger by 5 squads.

This wears out the defender. (and the supply consumed by the attacker does not produce any visable VP record of the cost)

But suppose the attacker does not have the supply. He has supply to attack but not to recover.
Suppose he attacks every day regardless (I see this quite oten)
Day 1 90
Day 2 80 (lower attack force result in higher number of disabled sqds.

At some point the loss resulting from an attack divieded into attacking sqds is going to result in 1 being killed.
Disabled attacking sqds take no part in combat
disabled defending Sqds do not aid the defense but are targets (it is easer to destroy disabled squads when the loss is divided up)

So as long as the attacker has supply, rests his troops and has good combat ratios he never appears to suffer any loss. but in fact has suffered loss (much less then enemy and no "real" loss because his units always retained more combat effectivness.

[moses]

Mr. Frag:

Do I understand that you are suggesting a new "withdrawl" option. Or has this been suggested and I missed it? Is there a thread for this? If so this could be a nice idea. I didn't know that was under consideration.

A withdrawl option or a delay option that would cause combats to be less lethal and maybe negate the retreat losses might possibly solve all problems. I don't know any details but am interested.

To answer you're question--It might very well get to the root of my argument.

Tell me more.[:D]

[Nikademus]

The Russia problem i see mainly as an OOB issue and a thorny one at that. I think the Russians should receive some kind of reinforcement but how much is tough to gauge given the impending launch of Case Blue in summer 42.

Ideally allowing the Russians to move around on "their" side of the border (but not cross it unless activated) would help too but that would require coding or the removal of Russian "activation" and putting the process in the player's hands.

[mogami]

Hi, My largest complaint is once I am engaged in abattle it is very hard to retreat from the hex before being forced out.
I would like an option "instant" retreat.
My units force march out. They carry what supply they can and take increased disrution but they are out of the hex.
The way it is now once I am in a battle I am stuck there till the enemy forces me out.
(That is the reason I advocate retreating so early as China)(and why I am gone from Rangoon before the Japanese arrive)

[Charles2222]

ORIGINAL: moses

The problem occurs with any retreat. Keep in mind that as Mogami says "this is an operational level game." I think that a retreat at this level need not always be a rout.

A retreat should in most cases be thought of as the attacker has taken a key position which compells the defender to pull back to the next appropriate defence position. The defender pulls back in an organized manner over a period of days with minimal loss of equipment/supplies. Certainly there were many instances where a rout was literally what happened. But where large formations are concerned the most reasonable way to view a retreat is as I have stated above.

Maybe a morale check could be used to decide if a unit routs or simply pulls back. Should be based on morale and size of unit. (a small unit in 60 miles of space can be more easily flanked or bypassed then 5 Divisions)

I think you hit the nail on the head, but what I'm saying, and perhaps you understood that, is that instead of the traditional view of making a statement of rout, they instead are focusing on the type of attack, such that any retreat, albeit inaccurate to do it 'completely' that way, from a shock attack is automatically a rout (but only called a retreat). Of course if the retreat is just as poor with the slow attack then that blows that theory up.

[Nikademus]

On a related note, since this issue was being debated in another thread, the ENG "trick/tactic/exploit" appears to work as described.

Another suprise for this one. I had assumed the attacks worked as with UV, (i.e. you set one unit to attack and all units in the hex also attack automatically)

First attack failed to reduce a fort level (2 ENG units attacking delib....all others set to bombardment) but attacker casualties were half that of the defender. 2nd day attack same result + a fort level reduction.

I'm not sure if the designers intended this to be a valid tactic but it does feel a bit exploitive to me since normally the attacker would have to take alot more casualties if all attacked + ENG units being able to attack alone without suffering massive casualties as a result and reducing a hex's entire fort level seems out of wack to me.

[moses]

I think the Russia problem is completely solved by allowing some sort of russian reaction. The same effect might be achieved by activating russia when Japan brings a certain AV level within a certain range of russian cities. i.e. When more then 15 divisions are within 3 hexes of a russian city they activate. Or something like that.

Anything which prevents Japan from just walking into a russian city with 15 divisions before they can react.

This is probably the most minor problem since it can be handled easily with a house rule. Mostly I just used it as an extreme example of the problems I saw with the combat system. "Hey I just conquered Russia with no casualties. Look over here there's a problem!!!"

[tsimmonds]

Behind eavry stack engaged in combat place a combat unit and dig in with it.

I just love stuff like this....[:)]

[moses]

Hi, My largest complaint is once I am engaged in abattle it is very hard to retreat from the hex before being forced out.
I would like an option "instant" retreat.
My units force march out. They carry what supply they can and take increased disrution but they are out of the hex.

I agree I would like this too. Maybe Frag's idea works here.

[moses]

On the eng issue I think there appears to be a problem but I also think there has to be a way to reduce fortifications short of an all out attack. The way it is working in the Chansa AAR thread does appear to be out of line.

Reduction of fortifications can IRL be done over time without huge loss of life. However it certainly should not be possible to do it while inflicting greater loss on the defender.

[Nikademus]

again, we have to consider the game in operaitonal level terms. the hex is a 60 mile hex, and the fort levels represent a broad general level of defence. Allowing specific small units to easily reduce the entire hex's fort level which can be considered a "cost" for an entire attacking force to successfully assault just doesn't seem right. If players should be allowed to consider smaller scale tactics to reduce forts, the defender should have similar options to rebuild local defences. it becomes a vicious circle

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, My largest complaint is once I am engaged in abattle it is very hard to retreat from the hex before being forced out.
I would like an option "instant" retreat.
My units force march out. They carry what supply they can and take increased disrution but they are out of the hex.
The way it is now once I am in a battle I am stuck there till the enemy forces me out.
(That is the reason I advocate retreating so early as China)(and why I am gone from Rangoon before the Japanese arrive)

See my reply to moses on this subject. Drongo hasn't had this issue in our game. He's been able to bug out a large majority of the time, sometimes while in combat, sometimes in advance if he thinks the position isnt' tenible or worth fighting over.

an "instant retreat" option to me smacks too much of a safety net. If you stand your ground, you risk being forced out or routed....plain and simple. Your other option is not to stand your ground in the first place.

[moses]

But at the operatioal level your only option is not full scale assault on a fortified area. You do have options other then to impale yourself on the fortifications.

[mogami]

Hi, I see it as a "fill in the ditch"issue. engineers cannot fill in the ditch or clear the mines if they are being shot. Infantry or armor has to mask the effort by engaging.
That is why combat engineer accompy assault troops. They don't go out alone.
How can they fll in my trench? Cut my wire and lift my mines? Someone has to be suppressing the enemy.
That is why fort reduction is tied to shock attack combat ratios.
And why less then shock attacks are only supposed to lower fort level by 1 or 2 (but they are supposed to still meet the required ratios (IE 1-1 or 2-1 or more) A fort should never be reduced by a 0-1 attack. That is a bug.

[scout1]

an "instant retreat" option to me smacks too much of a safety net. If you stand your ground, you risk being forced out or routed....plain and simple. Your other option is not to stand your ground in the first place

Instant retreat wouldn't be right, but there are ALOT of examples of a fighting withdraw during the war. Some better performed than others (which turned into a rout anyway),
but a reasonable fresh unit, that isn't high in disruption with a leader worth his weight with favorable terrain (enough modifiers [:D]), should have the ability to try a fighting withdraw. Delaying actions happened alot, at least in the ETO. Since learning about the PTO.

[mogami]

Hi, I think there are examples of where a force stood it's ground fought and then said "time to go"
In WITP you can't say "time to go" because every time you are attacked your movement is cancalled and has to begin all over only to be cancelled by the next arty barrage.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

again, we have to consider the game in operaitonal level terms. the hex is a 60 mile hex, and the fort levels represent a broad general level of defence. Allowing specific small units to easily reduce the entire hex's fort level which can be considered a "cost" for an entire attacking force to successfully assault just doesn't seem right. If players should be allowed to consider smaller scale tactics to reduce forts, the defender should have similar options to rebuild local defences. it becomes a vicious circle

Remove this "tactical" ability which destroys forts inherent to engineer units. This does not belong at all in this scale. Period. Forts should never be reduced to zero in city/base hexes. After all, rubble is a great fortification. Perhaps minimum of 3 once built up.

[moses]

BTW reducing forts with the eng attack isn't all that easy . It takes a long time even with four eng units. I found that it took about a month to reduce a level 9 fort to level 4 and at that point it was possible for the enemy to repair the fort as fast as I could reduce it.


The problem was that it could be done while at the same time inflicting greater losses on the defender. This was clearly wrong

After being convinced that the pure engineer attack was gamey I started doing the same thing but adding one division to the attack. The results struck me as quite realistic. I took about 2-1 casualties(per combat report) and was able to reduce the forts with each attack. (once every 3 days) Once I got to level 4 it became difficult to reduce it further. They could build it back faster. I gave up when the losses became too great.

Perhaps the easy solution here is too require a minimum AV (I think about 200-300 AV) in order for engineers to reduce forts.