Japanese grand strategy

[Mr.Frag]

In the game a deliberate attack causes very great losses and very disadvantages loss ratio's. Very quickly my advantage will disappear and the battle is over after two or three delibearate attacks.

That is *exactly* what should happen.

Borderline ratio should *always* go to the defender. It is up to the Attacker to win, not up to the Defender to loose.

If you want to fight at the borderline level, you must stop, rest and recover fatigue/disruption then attack again, and repeat the sequence as long as it takes. Hopefully due to planning, you are recovering faster then the other guy and will eventually wear him down.

An opening attack (both sides rested and ready) causes very little losses as both sides have fatigue and disruption to spare. If you watch your fatigue closely, you will know if you won or lost even on a 0:1 result. If it skyrockets, you will never win. If it doesn't, you have enough forces to win over time but you *have* to allow recovery between attacks.

[mogami]

ORIGINAL: moses

You might depending on how you plan the attack. Keep in mind of those "18,000 casualties", most of them, as much as 90% would be wounded vs. being killed. (I really think this was what Gary was after when he wrote the LCU formulas)

OK lets say I am a sane commander and I come across a force defending behind strong fortifications. I am stronger then the enemy but not so much that I can just storm ahead. Say I have a 3 to 2 ration of combat power. What do I do.

In the game a deliberate attack causes very great losses and very disadvantages loss ratio's. Very quickly my advantage will disappear and the battle is over after two or three delibearate attacks.

What would more likely be done is a period of smaller, limited attacks aimed at undermining the enemies position and fortifications. This process seems to be modeled fairly well when I attack in the game with a single division supported by engineers. That's all I'm saying.

Hi, If you only have a 3 to 2 force ratio you should not attack. Plan and simple. There is no way all other things being equal 3 to2 is going to win against a dug in enemy. If you go ahead and order an attack you get repulsed.
But you do force the enemy to consume supply.
The game requires a 2 to 1 ratio to force a retreat. 3 to 2 is enough to reduce fort levels but you will still at some point need to get that 2 to 1 ratio or the attacks are pointless. Pointless attacks are not a good way to advance your cause.

[Nikademus]

Your trapping yourself into thinking too tactically. Ask yourself this....What does the fortification level in the game represent? Does it represent a specific or set of specific small forts that your "engineers" can try to undermine before a main attack or does it represent an overall level of entrenchment for the entire hex/units in the hex?

The game must abstract alot of what you are using for your examples. I see it in simple operational terms.

-Fort levels assist all units in a hex in resisting attacks.
-Attackers will have a more difficult time assaulting said units if they have forts. (same goes for the defender if counterattacking)
-ENG units were introduced into the game (UV) to give additional bonus rolls to the attacker to reduce fort levels, thus help shorten battles and reduce overall casualties. They were envisioned (given how UV worked) as support for an overall abstracted attack in the hex
- In WitP...whether by design or error...the "support" units can now attack alone and not suffer consequences as a result. (kind of similar in vein to night bombing)

All this talk about small enagements and moves are beyond the scope of this game. We have Steel Panthers for that.

In the end....this tactic has one result, it shortens the battle which is what everyone generally complains about (PACE) because it leaves the main elements free to not attack until all forts are gone and they can then (maybe) make one all out attack and boom...they have the hex. Frankly i'm suprised that this is being debated by the some of the same people who complain about attacker advantages.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

That plus fixing the engineer bonus on fortifications on less then a 1:1 result and it should go a *long* ways in the right direction.

Dont have a problem with 0:1 fort level reductions as long as the ENG's are SUPPORTING the attack and adding their weight to it vs. magically reducing the entire hex's fort level alone and not suffering heavily as a result.

.

Now ... all we need is to invent a 32 hour clock so there is time for all this [X(]

It is doubtful that any major changes can be done when one considers the time for both coding and testing.

[mogami]

Hi, I am fairly certain that the intent was for non shock attacks to reduce 1 level if 1-1 odds and 2 levels if 2-1 odds (or higher) with a 2 level reduction limit.
Shock attacks were to reduce levels at combat ratio and engineer numbers
If 1 engineer present and 1-1 or better then 1 level
If 2 engineers present then 2 levels at 2-1 or better
if 3 engineers present then 3 levels at 3 to 1 or better.

Under no circumstance were 0-1 ratios no matter how many engneers present to reduce a level.
A 0-1 attack means the attack fails right from the start and the only question is loss to each side.

Ratios are not a product of pure numbers. 200,000 versus 50,000 is not automaticlly 4 to 1.
If 0 to 1 can reduce forts under any circumstance then attackers will just move into hex with enough to avoid being shocked out and attack. When forts reduced they will move in the bulk of their forces and win. (They could have won faster but this way is much cheaper)

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Under no circumstance were 0-1 ratios no matter how many engneers present to reduce a level.
A 0-1 attack means the attack fails right from the start and the only question is loss to each side.

I dont believe that was how Joel B explained the modified odds and ENG units have always been able to roll for FORT level reduction even if the results are 0:1. I just did this in my PBEM game. the modified odds were 0:1 and the fort level reduced from 5 to 4. The only difference was that the ENG units were able to attack alone which is the problem.

[moses]

I won't agrgu too much since it was not my main point. I didn't even know about eng attacks until recently.

But I am thinking at the operational level. If I have 15 divisions vs your 10 there is no reason why I have to attack with all 15 at once. Most hold the front and I can conduct one limited operation in one small sector to break in a small portion of his position. At the operational level this represents a reduction of the fortifications.

I agree I need to attack with something other than engineers. But not every battle has to be so dramatic.

Still Frags explanation is somewhat convincing and I will think about it for a bit. [&:]

[mogami]

Hi, It was a long time ago but I seem to recall the evolution of fortifactions and engineer reduction followed a path like this.

In the beginning fortifations were not reduced at all. The attacker had to get 2 to 1 plus fortifaction levle to get defender to retreat. If he did then he got the hex forts and all.
So a level 9 fortified hex required 11 to 1 odds to take. (The most powerfull fort on the map was level 5)
You could not build forts as easy as now.

The engineers were allowed to offset fort levels. Eventually this became reducing fort levels. Meanwhile it became possible to build fort levels in base hexes and then in non base hexes.
If we have now gotten to less then 1 to 1 impacting forts we really have drifted from back when fort levels didn't even show in combat reports because they were part of the terrian and just odd modifiers for certain hexes.

The engineers have grown in power while the forts have diminished to where they no longer provide the original intent. (to make certain hexes much harder to capture as long as they were supplied and garrisoned. Now they are just minor speed bumps and not major obstacles requiring planning beyond detailing a engineer unit to the attack.

[Nikademus]

LoL....well i agree it was a long time ago, but as my aging memory considers it, FORT level reduction was always a part of the game. I recall it because i complained about it during UV days all the way up to WitP when i showed how easy and quick it was to take a fortified hex with the Buna test under the old executible.

The only major executible change i recall happened after that series of tests and it slowed down the pace greatly but ENG units have always been able to roll against FORT levels to my knowlege. Maybe Joel can confirm. Regardless..one can get fort reductions at 0:1 which i dont have a problem with since when you think about it, most attack results are 0:1 at first. Anything over that modified result either means you were attacking in overwhelming strength or that after a pitched fight your starting to make some headway.

[mogami]

Hi, I think over time fortifactions in WITP became the same as entrenchments.
A fort is a site where major construction has occured and an entrenchment is where troops have dug in (the longer they are in a hex the better they dig in while it is (was) muh harder increase a fort. I don't think we have forts any more.
I think the engineers gained a skill versus entrenchments that they now use to increased effect in hexes that once were forts.
But it was a long time ago and I often misunderstand intent.

engneers did not decrease forts the same as they decreased entrenchments.
But now due to the forts no longer existing they work like Singapore and Corrigador are entrechments.

LCU were allowed to entrench but it required engineers to build forts.

Strange I missed this evolution.

[Nikademus]

To my knowledge, Forts, (my abreviation for Fortifications) in the game were always entrenchements. Heh....i still have my UV disk....suppose i could always reload up version 1.0 and test it out (what a trip down memory lane that would be....) [:D]

[medicff]

ORIGINAL: moses

On the eng question. If I have one division and 4 eng in a hex is it gamey to deliberate attack with everything. Obviouisly no. At least I think most would think this was OK.

So if I then add 3 more divisions why should it be gamey to attack with one division and bombard with the other three?

By just having a minimum AV you avoid this paradox.

If you attack with everything you have, then no problems as the defender can counter such a weak force, but if you have six divisions resting, 1 attacking and 4 engineers so you cannot be counterattack and take advantage of this technique, then I think it is wrong.

[moses]

I guess I just think about fortifications differently. I always have seen the value of fortifications as primarily to delay the attack.

I remember attending an infantry conference of all the big dogs that I attended as a flunky. The topic of the day was how could fortifications be dealt with in the the era when we were so casualty averse. The old guys who had experience reducing bypassed german fortifications would have none of it. They basically argued that it was a matter of time. If you had the time to do the work and you had troops that knew what they were doing then it was a step by step process. You just steadily reduced each position one by one until the enemy gave up. They said their losses were very light as long as they were not rushed.

So to me a fortification at the operatioal level represents something that is going to just take time to overcome. It prevents me from rolling right over the enemy until I've done the work required to reduce the position So I see nothing wrong with a process that sees low risk, low casualty attacks slowly reducing the fortification level until such time as an all out attack becomes feasable.

[Nikademus]

but again you are sinking into the tactical level. The entire hex attack is an abstracted process and the fort level represents the entrenchment level of the entire hex. As such having a single ENG unit able to reduce that entire hex's overall Fortification level without the defender being able to offer recourse smacks of an exploit.

addon: if fort levels were meant in the game to slow things down....using the ENG exploit to speed things up defeats the purpose of fort levels. (i also think they were meant to make things tougher too i.e. in casualties which will wear down an attacker.

[moses]

I was just explaining my thoughts. It was a tactical level example.

Current system really doesn't slow things down as you have only two options. EDIT(Actually I guess the current system works OK since eng supported attacks are allowed [;)]) Attack all out or don't. With eng attacks and some minimum supporting force requirement you have a third option. Spend a month reducing the fortification at a significant but not devasting cost in casualties.

The all out attack may work as Frag suggested. You attack get 0 to 1 then rest and do it again. But in practice if you can't get 1 to 1 the first time I don't know that you ever will. And while you rest the defender rebuilds the fortification. The only way this works well is when you can get 1 to 1 or better on the first attack. Then it works fine.

So if you can get 1 to 1 the first time you can defeat the enemy in fairly short order. 1 to 1, rest a few days, then again at better odds, soon you take the position. FAST.

If you can't get 1 to1 the first time then you can do nothing. You will never break through. STOP.

With an eng supported attack of some kind you have a third option of slowly reducing the fortification level until you can get a 1 to 1 attack. SLOW.

Just my thoughts. I don't really disagree with your logic. I understand what your saying. I might do it different if I was the designer but so what. I'm just talking about the options.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: moses

I was just explaining my thoughts. It was a tactical level example.

Current system really doesn't slow things down as you have only two options. EDIT(Actually I guess the current system works OK since eng supported attacks are allowed [;)]) Attack all out or don't. With eng attacks and some minimum supporting force requirement you have a third option. Spend a month reducing the fortification at a significant but not devasting cost in casualties.

Except that it doesn't take a month and the casualties are not signifigant. At least thats what i'm finding. I expect to have a pissed off opponent soon unless he agrees with what your saying [;)] So far in two attacks i've only suffered 300 casualties both times while inflicting twice that to the enemy in two days with 1 whole fort. level reduced. Very cheap price to pay for reducing the fort level of a major map position. Now contrast that to my first regular Deliberate attack, one supported by naval bombardment and i suffered around 1800 casualties and no fort reduction (that slowed me down!)

Just my thoughts. I don't really disagree with your logic. I understand what your saying. I might do it different if I was the designer but so what. I'm just talking about the options.

Nothing wrong with talking. Myself....I have been known to novilize on occasion [;)]

[Mr.Frag]

moses, I do understand what you are saying ... but look at it in reverse ... what do the defender's engineers do while you are doing this? Sleep? Play Cards?

It's completely one sided.

Shouldn't the defenders get a counter-engineer roll?

[moses]

OK I'm fine with it either way. I just look at it differently.

In my game with WITP_DUDE I was supporting my eng units with a division and attacking every third turn at Chungking where we both had very large forces. It turned to be not so one-sided. I lost casualties at a 5 to 2 rate and gave up when it proved to be impossible to reduce the fortifications faster then he could rebuid them. Plus my forces were so depleted that they could not easily continue. I don't see how this is one-sided. It looks like I paid a very heavy price and then lost anyway.

Now some of the results posted in the Changsa AAR are clearly gamey. Where 4 eng units attack alone and lose 50 casualties reduce a fort level and then inflict heavy loss (3or 4K) on the defender-- Now this is clearly wrong.

But if I attack, I lose 4000 casualties inflict 2000 on the defender and reduce the fort. This looks fine to me. Plus I will take actuall kills here because my loses are presumably concentrated in a small number of units wheras the defenders are spread over a large force so his are mostly disrupted.

I don't see what is wrong with my example but its not all that important I guess. I'll just have to retire, learn to code and make my own game I guess. Then you all can harrass me.[:D]

[WiTP_Dude]

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

moses, I do understand what you are saying ... but look at it in reverse ... what do the defender's engineers do while you are doing this? Sleep? Play Cards?

It's completely one sided.

Shouldn't the defenders get a counter-engineer roll?

No, they shouldn't. They can rebuild fortifications already. Plus fortifications are easier to destroy than to build. Pillboxes can be eliminated in minutes but take a lot longer to construct.

[Nikademus]

If the ENG units are attacking unsupported then the defender should be allowed to masacre them in the same way that happens when an individual non ENG LCU gets masacred when it attacks alone. For some reason, this doesn't happen when ENG units attack alone.

In the end, the result of this exploit is to return the land combat routine to the days when players could just attack every turn and keep on attacking. (a major source of the Pacing issue)