Surrender routines. Please explain.

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: 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.

Just because the game shows them as still effective military units doesn't mean they would be in reality. That is part of the problem. The unit may have "gone bush" and be operating as loosely organized partisans, but that means they are no longer effective military units. And they won't be able to re-organize themselves as military units until and unless other friendly forces take control of the area. (Or filter themselves back into friendly territory.)

[dtravel]

ORIGINAL: 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.

You don't control the entire hex. You control the port(s), airfield(s), critical road junctions, some of the towns and settlements.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: dtravel
Just because the game shows them as still effective military units doesn't mean they would be in reality. That is part of the problem. The unit may have "gone bush" and be operating as loosely organized partisans, but that means they are no longer effective military units. And they won't be able to re-organize themselves as military units until and unless other friendly forces take control of the area. (Or filter themselves back into friendly territory.)

Are you saying that the Australians in Timor, to go back to my example, were not an organised or effective military unit after the initial Japanese attack? Again I have to disagree. As the Timor example shows, there were cases in the war where it took more than a day or so (in this case it took months) to clear large areas of enemy forces, so it should not be impossible in the game.

[Sneer]

and how does it corresponds to 4:1 attacker :defender losses and extremaly high disruption after more or less good assault ?

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: dtravel
You don't control the entire hex. You control the port(s), airfield(s), critical road junctions, some of the towns and settlements.

In reality that might be the case, especially for a unit consisting of a few squads, but in game terms there is no difference between those two viewpoints. I am of the opinion that a few squads should not be able to block the retreat of a force consisting of several divisions, or control a hex. What I would prefer is that a unit or units would have to be of a certain minimum size before exerting a zone of control in a hex.

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

ORIGINAL: 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.

You don't control the entire hex. You control the port(s), airfield(s), critical road junctions, some of the towns and settlements.

And as I said it may be difficult for a single division to establish control of a single hex...depending on the type of hex. The Owen Stanley Ridge btw PM and Buna really easy for a division to establish control. Any number of cultivated hexes in China a single division would have a difficult time "establishing control".

[treespider]

ORIGINAL: Sneer

and how does it corresponds to 4:1 attacker :defender losses and extremaly high disruption after more or less good assault ?

The defender retreats five miles N. The next attacK five miles east, the next attack five miles N, the next attack five miles W. Your still in the same hex after four days.

I'm not suggesting the Land Combat Model works in fact I'm more and more convinced it is broken and out of scale.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: treespider

ORIGINAL: Sneer

and how does it corresponds to 4:1 attacker :defender losses and extremaly high disruption after more or less good assault ?

The defender retreats five miles N. The next attacK five miles east, the next attack five miles N, the next attack five miles W. Your still in the same hex after four days.

I'm not suggesting the Land Combat Model works in fact I'm more and more convinced it is broken and out of scale.

I agree, it does need some work.

[Sneer]

show me offensive operation where assult abilities were broken on day 1
esp given condition we write

[moses]

It is completly meaningless to claim its OK because some cut off units continued to fight in real life.

In the game units become stronger after they are surrounded. This applies to even ridiculous cases.

At Victoria point I now have an allied base force holding out against a Japanese Brigade for the sole reason that it has nowhere to retreat to. If I didn't own the base the allied unit would surrender in one turn. If there was a retreat route it would retreat with heavy losses. But because it evacuated the base-my units took the base-and then it was driven back into the now Japanese owned base---It is nearly invulnerable.

So we have a situation where the very worst thing you can do is surround a unit outside of a base hex. Anyone name a single game in the history of wargaming that gave a massive combat defensive bonus for being surrounded!!!!!!

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: moses

It is completly meaningless to claim its OK because some cut off units continued to fight in real life.

In the game units become stronger after they are surrounded. This applies to even ridiculous cases.

At Victoria point I now have an allied base force holding out against a Japanese Brigade for the sole reason that it has nowhere to retreat to. If I didn't own the base the allied unit would surrender in one turn. If there was a retreat route it would retreat with heavy losses. But because it evacuated the base-my units took the base-and then it was driven back into the now Japanese owned base---It is nearly invulnerable.

So we have a situation where the very worst thing you can do is surround a unit outside of a base hex. Anyone name a single game in the history of wargaming that gave a massive combat defensive bonus for being surrounded!!!!!!

The only time a unit suffers elimination is when it has no where to retreat to. With out being isolated units suffer disablments and recover. Units can and will be eliminated when cut off or denied a base to retreat to. That is not a bonus.

If you take game results literally they are very strange. The land war is abstracted and would take a completely different game to remove these odd abstarctions. I certainly agree that it could use adjustments. I think it would be detrimental to make it easy to eliminate units when isolated. You have time to try relief attempts and it slows an attacker when it takes a large effort to reduce a unit.

Easy snip and squish has ruined a couple of games for me. I would not like to see it in this one.

[moses]

I think it would be detrimental to make it easy to eliminate units when isolated. You have time to try relief attempts and it slows an attacker when it takes a large effort to reduce a unit

Let me frame the issue:

A single Chinese corps sitting in a wooded rail hex. Advance 4 Japanese divisions into the hex with HQ and you will drive this unit out with heavy loss.

Now surround the unit before attacking. Now suddenly you are killing 10 Chinese per turn and it takes you several months to clear the rail.

There is no way to justify this increase in defensive power. You can claim that because they are surrounded they fight with greater desperation and perhaps even a few historical examples can be found. But still being surrounded and isolated is a bad thing. As a rule when you become surrounded and isolated you're force is going to be less effective not more. I think you would be hard pressed to find an historical example of a unit which was unable to hold a position UNTIL it became surrounded????

As someone who has spent tons of time working with ground combat in the game I'm quite comfortable with the many abstractions and strange goings on. But we should call this particular issue what it is. A bug. The rules say what is supposed to happen and in the case of isolated units defending outside of their base the rules are not followed.

Personnally I'm happy with the game as is and can live with this particullar problem. But you have to be honest. This does not appear to be a design choice. I'd be happy to be corrected on this. But it sure appears to be a flat simple bug.

[DFalcon]

ORIGINAL: moses


As someone who has spent tons of time working with ground combat in the game I'm quite comfortable with the many abstractions and strange goings on. But we should call this particular issue what it is. A bug. The rules say what is supposed to happen and in the case of isolated units defending outside of their base the rules are not followed.

Personnally I'm happy with the game as is and can live with this particullar problem. But you have to be honest. This does not appear to be a design choice. I'd be happy to be corrected on this. But it sure appears to be a flat simple bug.

I have a great respect for your views on the ground combat system. It is the basis for much of my understanding of the routines. If you think there is a bug in certain cases when units are isolated I believe your assesment even though I have not encountered it.

I was expressing an opinion that for the most part I do not have a problem with how the game handles isolated units. That I need 8-10 to 1 and support to start reducing them. Even then it will take time. I would not like to see this bug give fuel to a desire that isolated units be destroyed quickly and easily. It appears our opinions are similar on this.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: moses
It is completly meaningless to claim its OK because some cut off units continued to fight in real life.

I have to disagree. If it is claimed something is impossible, but in fact it did happen in real life, then in my view the fact that it happened is very relevant.

At Victoria point I now have an allied base force holding out against a Japanese Brigade for the sole reason that it has nowhere to retreat to. If I didn't own the base the allied unit would surrender in one turn. If there was a retreat route it would retreat with heavy losses. But because it evacuated the base-my units took the base-and then it was driven back into the now Japanese owned base---It is nearly invulnerable.

As I have already stated, I agree that such huge discrepancies between base and non base hexes don't seem right.

However I don't think that the two situations are necessarily exactly equivalent. I would say that if a unit was surrounded in a single location, such as a single base, then it would be easier to surround and eliminate the unit than if it was dispersed over a large area of mountains or forest/jungle trying to evade capture. The combat model should try to account for such differences, if possible.

It is difficult to generalise about such things however, because there are huge differences in what a "base" can represent in the game - anything from a single dirt aistrip up to a huge urban area, or even several "bases" in the same hex.

So we have a situation where the very worst thing you can do is surround a unit outside of a base hex. Anyone name a single game in the history of wargaming that gave a massive combat defensive bonus for being surrounded!!!!!!

Do you mean that is is more difficult to wipe out a unit than make it retreat? Or do you mean that it is much harder to wipe out a unit in a non-base hex than a base hex? If the latter, then I tend to agree, as I have previously stated. If the former, then I am no so sure. It would depend on the circumstances.

And again, my primary concern is that if eliminating surrounded units is made too quick and easy, then the game will become "faster", at least in terms of LCU combat, than it already is.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: DFalcon
I was expressing an opinion that for the most part I do not have a problem with how the game handles isolated units. That I need 8-10 to 1 and support to start reducing them. Even then it will take time. I would not like to see this bug give fuel to a desire that isolated units be destroyed quickly and easily. It appears our opinions are similar on this.

That is my opinion as well, especially for units in difficult terrain (such as mountain or jungle).

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: DFalcon
I was expressing an opinion that for the most part I do not have a problem with how the game handles isolated units. That I need 8-10 to 1 and support to start reducing them. Even then it will take time. I would not like to see this bug give fuel to a desire that isolated units be destroyed quickly and easily. It appears our opinions are similar on this.

That is my opinion as well, especially for units in difficult terrain (such as mountain or jungle).

I have a problem with the disparity betweeeen isolated units in base hexes and non base hexes. I also have a problem with the ZOC issues.

[Sneer]

if land combat can't be modelled correctly throw it away from game
it is a solution and it is easy

[moses]

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses
It is completly meaningless to claim its OK because some cut off units continued to fight in real life.

I have to disagree. If it is claimed something is impossible, but in fact it did happen in real life, then in my view the fact that it happened is very relevant.

Heres why. You site an example where a unit continues to fight when surrounded. It does not logically follow that being surrounded is a defensive advantage. I think the overwhelmingly solid consensus view is that being surrounded is a disadvantage.

I don't claim that surrounded units should immediately surrender. Only that they should not recieve a defensive bonus which makes them in the range of 20 to a hundred times more powerful.

I'm sure I could find a historical example of a river causing a defensive position to fail. Who knows swampy terrain-defenders get bogged down and can't react. The attackers push right across. It does not follow that attakers should therefore get a river attack bonus!!! In general river lines favor the defender. Just as being surrounded is bad for the defender.

So we have:
1.) Common sence: Being surrounded is to be avoided if posssible. Anyone name a historical situation where a unit could not hold a position until and unless it was surrounded??? Note that this is different from simply finding a situation where a unit fought while cut off. You have to show where being cut off actually invcreased their defensive power by a large amount.
2.) Wargaming history: No game ever produced, to my knowledge, gives a defensive bonus for being surrounded. Can anyone produce an example of this?
3.) Rules of this game: They say whats supposed to happen and it doesn't. So it does not appear to be a design choice but a simple bug.

Not trying to be negative as I have defended the game, in some cases vigourously, in debating those who want to question every design choice and demand godlike perfection from developers and playtesters. But you have to be credable. A bug is a bug. If it can't be fixed fine. If its not worth the time fine. If it can be fixed but its feared that it will throw everything else off then thats fine too. But lets call it what it is.

[moses]

Do you mean that is is more difficult to wipe out a unit than make it retreat?

Heres what I mean: I use as an example my Japanese Brigade vs. the allied base force unit.

In most cases it is probably too easy to make units retreat or surrender. In fact in all the normal situations where the defender has a supply route things move too quickly. With my example you certainly expect the base force to lose but I would think that at least perhaps it might be able to mount some sort of delay and at least annoy that infantry brigade for a few days. But thats the way the game works.

One thing changes everything. Being surrounded and cut off while outside a base. Suddenly the base force developes a defensive ability that allows it to hold on for weeks against the superior force.

So the question has nothing to do with the speed of combat in general. I think we both agree that it is too fast but thats another issue. The issue is that the act of surrounding a unit provides the defender with a rather ridiculous defensive advantage. Its as if we added a rule that said clear terrain multiples the defence by four. That would slow combat as well but makes equally little sence.

[treespider]

So the question has nothing to do with the speed of combat in general. I think we both agree that it is too fast but thats another issue. The issue is that the act of surrounding a unit provides the defender with a rather ridiculous defensive advantage. Its as if we added a rule that said clear terrain multiples the defence by four. That would slow combat as well but makes equally little sence.

Is the routine in question
A: A defending unit is completely surrounded

or

B: Where the defending unit has an avenue to retreat

(with both cases having the defender not in a base hex)