Japanese grand strategy

[moses]

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.

Oh make no mistake. The current eng attack is clearly gamey. Its wrong. I totally agree that it should be changed. Absolutely no doubt about it in my mind or I think anyone who has looked at the numbers.

What I'm talking about is a minimum supporting force in order to get the eng fort reduction. When I have attacked with a supporting infantry division, 4 eng, with the rest of my units bombarding the results were far more reasonable. Generally my guy took 2 to 1 to 4 to 1 losses with each battle. So I would take 4000 losses the defender would take 2000 and the fort would go down. Thats what I'm talking about.

Otherwise it seems to me that the more divisions I bring to the battle the worse it gets. If I bring 20 divisions with my engineers and you force me to attack with all of them then I take horendous losses. If on the other hand I bring only one division my losses are not so bad. So the trick then is to bring enough so you don't get shock attacked out but no more because you have to attack with them all.


As I think about it though I'm mostly thinking about Chungking and perhaps that is not the best example to be focused on

[WiTP_Dude]

ORIGINAL: 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)

I agree this should be fixed. However like others have said, there should be an option to attack the enemy with the goal of reducing fortifications rather than getting an outright victory.

[Nikademus]

I would classify that under the same heading as the requests for some sort of "probing" attack, akin to the old Tigers in the Snow' method of Probing/light/medium/heavy attacks.

Only problem....(arn't there always???! [;)] ) is, how does one determine whats fair? FORT. levels were designed to make positions more defensible. One might argue that if a position is too strongly defended, then the solution lies elsewhere, such as bringing in not only superior numbers, but ensuring one has the best troops there, the best leaders and most importantly, the best support (air and/or naval power to assist) From testing the current LCU model i know that airpower in particular is VERY effective against land units because they cause massive disruption which is a key stat in determing combat resolution. The balance factor on the more LCU's you have present, the better the defender is able to weather the storm. It may turn out the best decision is to not attack? call it off...wait for a better day or look for a better opportunity elsewhere

I have to admit...i find this ENG issue somewhat funny because alot of what i've read in recent days has centered on the attacker being too advantaged in the game and things going to fast. Then there's the whole China debate. Now, with the prospect of the "defender" building an all but impregible position, which can only be taken "the hard way", we have people balking and desiring an "easy way out"

[:D]

[Tophat]

All this is fine and dandy.....now how does it help slowdown the combats so we don't have Blitzkrieg in the pacific?
I was looking at moses's arguement as a way to slowdown or extend combat,that ain't going to work now.
Frag,along time ago now you told me that weather effects were looked at and a longshot maybe to be put in with a patch. Any chance they will revisit weather effects as a means to help slowdown the pace of operations?

[Nikademus]

A "Monsoon" effect was suggested as a wish list item back around the time the Burma road supply bonus was implemented (thus giving players an excuse to romp in Burma) but obviously such a move would require major coding and would be considered yet another "new feature" request [:D]

Just saying for the moment that such a thing could be implemented, its best/simplest effect would be to slow all movement down to an absolute crawl in the areas impacted by "Monsoon" conditions. (something on the order of all movement being reduced to 1 mile per day) Add to that heavy supply trace penaties and possibly....a combat modifyer.

Wait whats that.....i hear screaming. Must be MikeW [:'(]

[moses]

Nikademus:

Yeah I think this eng thing is really a side issue. Probably better just to make it like Frag says and not allow eng to reduce unless they get the 1 to 1. The only time this has been a problem for me is in Chungking where I'm facing 20+ Chinese corps dug in in urban terrain. Probably not the best test case. In most other situations the eng issue is not really of concern.

No point in arguing this to death when its an issue that hardly will ever come up. How often do you come across an urban area with 20 divisions in it. If the other combat issue is fixed I think the answer will be never.

The retreat issue is much more important since it effects the game at many points.

[Tophat]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

A "Monsoon" effect was suggested as a wish list item back around the time the Burma road supply bonus was implemented (thus giving players an excuse to romp in Burma) but obviously such a move would require major coding and would be considered yet another "new feature" request [:D]

Just saying for the moment that such a thing could be implemented, its best/simplest effect would be to slow all movement down to an absolute crawl in the areas impacted by "Monsoon" conditions. (something on the order of all movement being reduced to 1 mile per day) Add to that heavy supply trace penaties and possibly....a combat modifyer.

Wait whats that.....i hear screaming. Must be MikeW [:'(]

Hmmn...actually...thats how movement should be in monsoon affected areas. And it would cutdown the action in Burma,India and western china.

[mogami]

Hi, Is where the debate really gets tough to decipher. If you mean slow down enemy by trying to defend where you have the worse supply and numbers then it will never work.

I stop the Japanese by building up bases that I have supply at and gathering a force equal to or greater then the Japanese can supply.

Often this means I have to sit and watch the Japanese grab bases I'd really like to keep becasue at the moment I can't stop it. Sure I could send forces there before he does or in response but I can't get the numbers or the supply.

While this pushes my offensive back to a later date it also avoids the horrible loss I see sometimes where a player loses his material piecemeal and then this allows the japanese to continue on since they no longer require the supply and material in great numbers.

You can't win battles with less. If the attacker has an amount greater then what you can oppose with the battle is lost before it begins. Level 9 forts will not stop him if the garrisons are out of supply and he brings 20 to 1 in material.

There is no instant recipe. At the start the Japanese have all the advantage within their sphere. If you remain inside the sphere he will win. You have to find the edge and start from there. Before you can go over to the attack you have to stop the Japanese advance. You do that the old fashioned way. It is better to defend to far back then too far forward.


My struggle in this subject is finding exactly where it is bad combat system compared to bad defense.
I want to fix bad combat results but allow bad defense to continue to fail.

Any location where as the defender you can bring force that limits the attacker to less then 2 to 1 and where you can sustain such ratio by supply and movement of fresh forces is where we have to begin. Does the attacker still surmount these defenses becasue of weak combat results or does the defense hold?

If attacks at less then 1-1 result in the attacker making progess I think it is bad.
I don't have a problem with attacks of 10-1 wrecking the defender.

Ground combat at Yenen

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 252895 troops, 2447 guns, 304 vehicles

Defending force 107426 troops, 651 guns, 75 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 5)


Japanese ground losses:
10837 casualties reported
Guns lost 286
Vehicles lost 4

Allied ground losses:
2866 casualties reported
Guns lost 110
Vehicles lost 2

[Mr.Frag]

A whole mile? Now, would that be a mile forward or a mile backwards? [:D]

[Tophat]

depends which way the water is flowing over the ground at the time.[:'(]

[Mr.Frag]

ORIGINAL: Tophat

depends which way the water is flowing over the ground at the time.[:'(]

Moosoon effect!

Japanese ground losses:
10837 casualties reported
Guns lost 286
Vehicles lost 4

Teach you to walk on the side of mountains in Burma!

[Rossj]

I started this thread not to complain about the system, but to try and get ideas to the developers on ways to improve the game so that japan can execute a broader range of strategies that are realistically executable beyond just capturing and holding the SRA.

If capturing china is unrealistically easy... then fix china oob, supply and combat system.
ditto india
ditto russia

I've read the multitude of post suggesting that an invasion of russia is realistic...I'm not convinced...If Japan had been successful in knocking china out of the war they could have left more than enough troops in china to garrison it and put 40+divisions in manchuria... the soviets would have been hard pressed to match it until mid 43...and if they did it would effect the outcome with germany.

[moses]

Rossj:

Personally I think conquering China should be nearly impossible and conquering eastern Russia should require large reinforcements in order to have a some chance of success in a long slow bloody campaign. Thats my point of departure. That they can be taken easily and cheaply using non-gamey tactics points to problems which in the ground combat system that should be solved.

I think the main problem is that the side on the offensive is able to advance in the initial phases of the campaign with too few casualties. Thus it is difficult to wear down the attacker or cause supply difficulties (no replacements needed) which would normally cause an offensive to grind to a halt. I may be wrong in my diagnosis of the problem but at least these things appear to be getting looked at seriously.

I'm pretty happy at the moment and feel that smart people will make the best decisions possible given the late stage of developement that we are in. If nothing can be done then thats just the way it is. But I believe that the people who have worked on this game want it to be the best game possible and will give it a fair look.

[medicff]

ORIGINAL: Mogami


If attacks at less then 1-1 result in the attacker making progess I think it is bad.
I don't have a problem with attacks of 10-1 wrecking the defender.

Ground combat at Yenen

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 252895 troops, 2447 guns, 304 vehicles

Defending force 107426 troops, 651 guns, 75 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 5)


Japanese ground losses:
10837 casualties reported
Guns lost 286
Vehicles lost 4

Allied ground losses:
2866 casualties reported
Guns lost 110
Vehicles lost 2

These results I can live with. Now I know more about the supply effects, I can better manage. Just want the same results of 6 divisions in hex all on bombard with some artillery and 3 combat engineers attack get results of 0-1 odds attacker adjusted from AV 201 to 150; defender adjusted from 615 to 937

results attacker 163 casualties
8 guns

defender 1047 casualties
43 guns
1 vehicle

forts reduced from 5 to 4;

That doesn't make sense and I am sure not intended.

Also having the ability to make fighting withdrawals limiting losses and taking more supply while giving up ground easier would help game mechanics instead of mistakes at defense attempts destroying any future defense effort.

[Rossj]

Clearly it is too easy as is, but IF (a big if) the IJN had not lost at midway and been able to defend the perimeter till mid 43 before they were seriously contested then the IJA would have had a fairly significant force in china that may have been able to win...at least finish the conquest of southern china...the whole point of the war from japan's point of view was to force china to surrender if they had more resources they could have suceeded, but those resources were needed to hold the perimeter...

[Mike Scholl]

A few points to ponder. What pushed the Japanese into the final decision to go to war
with the West? The US embargo on oil and other strategic materials. Why did the US
impose this embargo? Because the Japanese had occupied French Indo-China. And
why did the Japs sieze Indo-China? To cut the Chinese off from outside supply. And
why was this thought necessary? Because the IJA's war in China had steadily bogged
down since it's outbreak in 1937 to the point that further progress was proving almost
impossible by the end of 1940...., and the Chinese weren't showing any sign of being
ready to quit.

If the kind of progress players are able to make in the China War in the game was
really possible in history, then the whole basis of the wider war is pointless. Obviously
the game has a serious problem in this area..., or all Japanese Military and Political
leaders in 1941 were complete idiots. And while I will concede that they were insular
in outlook, with a tendency to overestimate their own capabilities and underestimate
those of potential opponanants, I can't buy into complete idiocy. They were the ones
that had been fighting the Chinese for 4 years. They obviously had a better grasp of
the reality of the China War than anyone not involved. If they knew they weren't
able to go any farther in China, then how can we argue otherwise? Unless we are
complete idiots....

[Tophat]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

A few points to ponder. What pushed the Japanese into the final decision to go to war
with the West? The US embargo on oil and other strategic materials. Why did the US
impose this embargo? Because the Japanese had occupied French Indo-China. And
why did the Japs sieze Indo-China? To cut the Chinese off from outside supply. And
why was this thought necessary? Because the IJA's war in China had steadily bogged
down since it's outbreak in 1937 to the point that further progress was proving almost
impossible by the end of 1940...., and the Chinese weren't showing any sign of being
ready to quit.

If the kind of progress players are able to make in the China War in the game was
really possible in history, then the whole basis of the wider war is pointless. Obviously
the game has a serious problem in this area..., or all Japanese Military and Political
leaders in 1941 were complete idiots. And while I will concede that they were insular
in outlook, with a tendency to overestimate their own capabilities and underestimate
those of potential opponanants, I can't buy into complete idiocy. They were the ones
that had been fighting the Chinese for 4 years. They obviously had a better grasp of
the reality of the China War than anyone not involved. If they knew they weren't
able to go any farther in China, then how can we argue otherwise? Unless we are
complete idiots....

lets not go off halfcocked and try and reinvent the wheel.....look folks all that was initially wanted was to slow down the combat abit so an infantry BLITZ doesn't take place. The game isn't broken,the game isn't unplayable.

[moses]

But we don't even have to argue about if it was possible to defeat China. What happens now is that China can be defeated consistantly, easily, and almost bloodlessly. Same with Russia it can be taken without much bloodshed on the part of Japan.

Some will say it should be impossible to defeat China. Some will say it might be possible at the end of a long and difficult campaign. But no one will argue that China should be rolled over in the way they are in the game.

Same with Russia. Could Russia have been defeated? Who knows. There are too many what ifs to consider. Its even possible that once in a million tries you might even get a rapid Russian collapse. But I think most people expect that at the very least an invasion of Russia should be a bloody and difficult affair.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

A "Monsoon" effect was suggested as a wish list item back around the time the Burma road supply bonus was implemented (thus giving players an excuse to romp in Burma) but obviously such a move would require major coding and would be considered yet another "new feature" request [:D]

Just saying for the moment that such a thing could be implemented, its best/simplest effect would be to slow all movement down to an absolute crawl in the areas impacted by "Monsoon" conditions. (something on the order of all movement being reduced to 1 mile per day) Add to that heavy supply trace penaties and possibly....a combat modifyer.

Wait whats that.....i hear screaming. Must be MikeW [:'(]

Should have been an obvious design feature from the get go. Not like this is GGs first crack at the topic. As with Aleutians, Burma should have been a weather dependent theatre.

[Mike Scholl]

ORIGINAL: Tophat

lets not go off halfcocked and try and reinvent the wheel.....look folks all that was initially wanted was to slow down the combat abit so an infantry BLITZ doesn't take place. The game isn't broken,the game isn't unplayable.

TOPHAT.....As Moses points out, the problem is that the game IS broken right now.
The ground combat system and the deployment restrictions make it relatively easy
to do what should hardly be possible after a long and difficult effort....What's worse
is that it points up problems that are general to ground combat system everywhere.
Even if you institute a "gentleman's aggreement" to avoid these problems where
they are obvious (Russia and China) they are still out there warping combat results
across the rest of the map.