Matrix Games Forums

You understanding is a bit off Jim ... sounds like you are mixing up modified odds vs numbers of troops.

2:1 AFTER all the modifications will win. That does NOT come anywhere need 2:1 troops.


Once you add lets say Urban Terrain (such as Singapore) + fortification, you are talking about adding 7

Thats 9:1 suddenly!

Now toss in the HQ mods which add another 10% or 90%

You quickly find out that 2:1 = 0:1 if you are talking troops [;)]

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Well your example is a 1-2 base attack for starters...

Jim

no, it isn't.

1 full strength division vs 1 full strength division. Ok their Assault values did not match 'exactly'. Call it a 1:1.3 Force level

Given the troop casualties that resulted. You think that .3 will have made a difference?

ORIGINAL: Agua

WitP is primarily a naval forces game. Very little focus is given to ground combat. It's the same with UV. Which is fine, it's still a great game, but the modeling of ground combat is not its strong point.

I think it's an even division between air/land/sea. If it leans toward anything, it leans towards the air element more. Consider scale of the game.

Stacking limits have been discussed countless times, but nothing has come of it. Would help I'd venture.

Here, i have the slightly stronger Japanese division Shock attack......

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR 05/01/42


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Luganville

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 22509 troops, 256 guns, 7 vehicles

Defending force 18180 troops, 234 guns, 0 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
2185 casualties reported
Guns lost 61
Vehicles lost 5

Allied ground losses:
23 casualties reported
Guns lost 5


As you can see Jim....a near 1:1 force level attack, even without forts, unsupported (by bombardment or air attacks) is suicide in this game.

Ok sorry for the short answer earlier, I should have re-emphasized my point. "All else being equal" means identical units with identical TO&E's, Leaders, etc. Luganville is also not a clear hex (Jungle I think), so the defender is effectively tripled in your example even though the combat reports do not reflect this (this would be a very nice addition to displayed reports) or any other modifiers to the combats.

My point is and always has been that the core system favors the attacker when it should favor the defender (with the possible exception of the DEI bases for the first few months). Of course Terrain, Leaders, Experience, etc. all have an effect on the combats, so you need to create an experimental scenario with two units in clear terrain and all other mods are identical for both sides to see an example of 1-1 plus shock = victory.

I doubt this example would ever occur in the game, but it is the basic core combat model under the hood so to speak. To successfully model WWII combat, I think a minimum of 3-1 should be achieved to have any chance of success. I also don't think it should be automatic, if the attacker gets his 3-1, there should be an experience check to see if the defender holds or not. If a unit is near full strength and supplied it should almost always pass this check, only battle weary troops should break regularly at 3-1 odds.

I'm not trying to make it harder to dislodge the defenders; I just want the combats to last longer as they did historically. Destroying a division of enemy troops (even if they are almost worthless troops) took time and effort. Even with Germany's resounding success in the opening months of the war in Russia, they suffered massive casualties.

Victory is simply too quick and too cheap as things stand now I think . Units are not being pulled back for lengthy refits by players, they simply move on to the next objective.

I don't have my sources at hand, but perhaps someone could tell us how long it was before the 1st Marines were combat ready again after being pulled out of Guadalcanal.

Jim

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Ok sorry for the short answer earlier, I should have re-emphasized my point. "All else being equal" means identical units with identical TO&E's, Leaders, etc. Luganville is also not a clear hex (Jungle I think), so the defender is effectively tripled in your example even though the combat reports do not reflect this (this would be a very nice addition to displayed reports) or any other modifiers to the combats.

My point is and always has been that the core system favors the attacker when it should favor the defender (with the possible exception of the DEI bases for the first few months). Of course Terrain, Leaders, Experience, etc. all have an effect on the combats, so you need to create an experimental scenario with two units in clear terrain and all other mods are identical for both sides to see an example of 1-1 plus shock = victory.

Jim

ah...so now its the terrain. Very well. clear terrain....equal exp, equal morale, equal leaders....and even now.....(drum roll) equal units.

Units used = 24th and 25th USA divisions. (25th changed to Japanese control)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at 46,111

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 16822 troops, 186 guns, 17 vehicles

Defending force 16330 troops, 185 guns, 0 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1


Japanese ground losses:
692 casualties reported
Guns lost 39
Vehicles lost 4

Allied ground losses:
8 casualties reported
Guns lost 1


Sorry Jim......your claim that the basic model is flawed due to a guranteed victory to the attacker on 1:1 force levels after a shock attack is simply incorrect.

Heh, I always thought giving a terrain bonus to the defender made the resolution system inherently biased to said defender in the first place.[;)]

All other things being equal, of course.[:'(]

SOmeone mentioned that it was discussed about limiting # of units in a hex - especially islands but they had no good way to do it - how about fort level.. The larger the fort is the more complex it is - thus they have underground bunkers for more men and so forth.. A level 9 fort could hold a lot of men underground where they were completely safe from most attacks.... where a level 1 is mostly foxholes and some rough bunkers (maybe)..

Xargun

Personally, I think fort levels are much to easily reduced. If engineer bonuses could be reduced to increments smaller than "one whole fort level", perhaps a tenth of a fort level, it would take longer to dislodge well dug in troops. Nikademus did a great job testing this for Buna/Gona and I believe this was his major beef as well. I don't think he could come close to replicating the time it took to take Buna/Gona.

Steve (Nik) can probably add to this in a meaningful way. I'm a naval buff really, and am advocating a few new features to at least somewhat improve the naval side.

OK, I have WITP now and it seems to me that the game simulates well 1941-1942 warfare but is then less good to simulate assaults on Japanese fortificated positions later in the game.

As Mr Frag points out, terrain is modifying the combat ratio... but I can't find in the manual the actual numbers. That means that you need at least 2 + X time more assault points than the defender to take a big city or you should besiege and pound it until the garnison has no more supplies. Seems very OK to me.

My only remaining complain will be that fortifications are destroyed too fast. And I have two questions on game mechanisms :
1) when engineers reduce the fort level of a base, is the size of the base and the number of defending troops taken in account ? Both should be in my opinion. After all, building fort is slower in big bases than in small ones, so there are probably more bunkers to destroy.
2) when engineers reduce the fort level of a base, is the terrain taken in account ? Destroying a bunker on a beach is easier than on the top of a jungle-covered hill (in the book Kohima, I read how a single well-placed Japanese bunker delayed Allied advance for days, before Allied engineers manage to build a road allowing a tank to reach a firing position and destroy it. All former attacks were repulsed).

with the new LCU rules, a Buna Gona is possible. I wrecked two full divisions (reduced heavy artillery to simulate the historical situation) trying to wrest Buna from the South Seas Brigade + 1 weak ENG regiment in support on continuous attack against Fort =9 defence.

60+ days later the Fort level was 4 and the two divisions were a mess. It required a fresh regiment as reinforcement to finally wrest the base. Using two full strength BG's of B-25's i was able to take the base after a brutal 21 day assault.

I've already covered my thoughts regarding airpower and the issue between singular LCU's and multiple one's. In this case, because there was only 1 strong LCU present, airpower was extremely effective. A multi strong LCU situation would probably have taken alot longer and been less effective

All in all, i am very happy with the changes. No more "UV" type, enter the hex, go to continous assault, (shock or delib) and damn the torpedoes.

Well I have no problem stating that I was apparently wrong, but according to the manual the hex should have fallen. Any ideas why it didn't? Was there a difference in leadership? Is there some randomization added to the combats not discussed in the manual?

I still believe battles are being resolved too quickly with few too casualties, but apparently the 2-1 ratio isn't the cause. So I now I pose a question, why?

Historically the US pulled back to Bataan by 1 Jauary 1942. They managed to hold out there until April on quarter rations suffering daily air raids and bombardments, and only surrendered when they had just two days of food left. Had there been enough food, they could have held out indefinately.

I don't believe this can happen with the current ground combat system, or if it can it is the exception rather than the rule. I thought it was the 2-1 ratio, but it appears I'm wrong. So why aren't combats lasting for more than a few days for the most part?

Jim

ORIGINAL: Jim D Burns

Well I have no problem stating that I was apparently wrong, but according to the manual the hex should have fallen. Any ideas why it didn't? Was there a difference in leadership? Is there some randomization added to the combats not discussed in the manual?

It didn't because as i've been telling you all along....attacking any unit with 1:1 force levels is suicidal under the new LCU rules. [;)] There was no hocus pocus here. As mentioned , leader ratings and unit exp were identical.

I still believe battles are being resolved too quickly with few too casualties, but apparently the 2-1 ratio isn't the cause. So I now I pose a question, why?

I cant answer that question because i dont see where combat is being resolved too quickly. It seemed to me like you were not seeing the whole picture, such as the China situation we discussed earlier.

Historically the US pulled back to Bataan by 1 Jauary 1942. They managed to hold out there until April on quarter rations suffering daily air raids and bombardments, and only surrendered when they had just two days of food left. Had there been enough food, they could have held out indefinately.

not necessarily. Its true that the defense posed a thorny prob for the Japanese because of the limited frontage. (preventing infiltration and flanking tactics so important in jungle warfare) However the biggest reason the US were able to hold out was because they outnumbered the attacker 2:1 try that in WitP and go over to the attack. see what happens [;)]

I don't believe this can happen with the current ground combat system, or if it can it is the exception rather than the rule. I thought it was the 2-1 ratio, but it appears I'm wrong. So why aren't combats lasting for more than a few days for the most part?

Jim

yes it can....as mentioned, attack a defender with same or inferior numbers, and/or dont prep with bombardments (which are part of an overall attack....i think thats part of your perception issue), youll hit a brickwall. you can keep attacking, and ruin your force...or you can break off and siege.

My own ops against Clarke/manila took weeks to pull off. the major assaults were meerly the end game