Japanese grand strategy

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: moses

Let me fill in a key gap that Nikademus did not mention. (correct me if I'm wrong) Attackers took zero kills. (I don't have Nikademus's results on this but I'll bet anything that if they lost anything if was like one squad and I doubt they even lost one.)

Your wrong. [;)] The attacker did take some losses. The attacker always takes some losses (now) and if the unit(s) in question are not forced to retreat, the attacker will be on the losing side of the equation. If an attack batters itself to a halt and never forces any retreat, the attacker will end up in far worse shape than the retreated unit with comprable losses.

In an actual sitiuation you have disabled squads at the start and so defender will take even higher kills than the 20% in the tests.

Will have to test that one.

So the problem I've been harping on does exist. Retreat equals death. The defenders take massive losses, the attacker takes none. So once the attacker gets the first retreat he just keeps rolling over the remnants of whatever the defender has left.

Retreat does not equal death. I've retreated enemy units in my game and been forced to retreat myself. Yes, its causing losses (that i never doubted even before the tests) but it hasn't crippled my units. The losses may be a bit on the high side though depending on the situation but frankly, i'm not sure what changes, if any, should be made.

squads are (obviously) the biggest loss but can be made good fairly quickly. What would be "death" would be to be made to retreat multiple times in a poor supply situation. In that sense however the game isn't much different from other warmages of the past.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: moses

Nikademus:

4. Listed casualties of the retreating unit reflect only the actual battle losses/disablements, not those caused by retreat. (i.e. you cant go by them to see how badly messed up your retreater is)

So they lose even more than what you list here? Is that correct? You're already showing 20% losses in every cases. So you saying that the test results you list are before any losses to retreat? Actual losses are even higher??

The combat report displays the casualties from the battle, same as if the unit doesn't retreat. In most of the tests, this amount was negligable (and would be entirely disablements only....no losses) As mentioned, when the defender doesn't retreat...he comes out well ahead of the attacker in most cases For example, in one of the tests the defender reported "casualties" was 21 men. (thats probably a single disabled squad)

[moses]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

The attacker always takes some losses (now)

So this has been recently changed? If so great.

[Nikademus]

Yes, this is part of the 1.5 changes that we are testing though even in the current version, an attacker that really batters itself to pieces against a formidable defense (and cant force a retreat) will end up being the side that suffers permanent losses along with most of it's units being disabled. (Taking weeks in a well supplied temperate zone to recover)

Thats the other side of the coin. The "issue" works both ways. One could argue that the losses in a retreat are too high (i'm not honestly sure) but on the same token...a defender can suffer only disablements while an attacker, with a few good failed attacks under his belt will be the one to suffer.

I was suprised that terrain or fatigue didn't impact squad casualties in a retreat. ah well.....live and learn. Some other little tidbits were interesting too....(leader and fatigue effect on odds)

[moses]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus


Retreat does not equal death. I've retreated enemy units in my game and been forced to retreat myself. Yes, its causing losses (that i never doubted even before the tests) but it hasn't crippled my units. The losses may be a bit on the high side though depending on the situation but frankly, i'm not sure what changes, if any, should be made.

squads are (obviously) the biggest loss but can be made good fairly quickly. What would be "death" would be to be made to retreat multiple times in a poor supply situation. In that sense however the game isn't much different from other warmages of the past.

Maybe we have different ideas of what constitutes crippled. In my view your lossing 20% plus losses plus another 10-20 disabled. So now you are at 65% of original strength. You are now fatigued, disrupted and have lower moral (would like to see numbers on morale effect if you kept this). So in one day your force seems to have lost over 50% of its combat ability.

Now this may be concievable for small units although it is certainly catastrophic. For 10 Corps of Chinese to lose this much in one day is not right. Now that you are at 50 % combat capability how will you have any chance in the next battle. So you just retreat as far as you can. But the enemy can follow as fast and as far as you can. Supply never really slows the attacker as many claim. The only hope is to find better terrain or more troops.

Still if you added some attacker casualties things may balance out OK. I Understand this is an abstraction and not all numbers have to make sence tactically.

[moses]

I agree that for non-retreats the attacker has a problem. Once stability is achieved deliberate attacks can be devastating to the attacker. And bombarding the defender does next to nothing fo large forces. So this is OK and if anything favors the defender. The problem I've always seen has been with retreats.

Glad to see attacker will take some casualties now. Hpefully these will balance everything out. Do you have the attacker loss results for the tests you did?

Looks like progress is being made. Thanks.[:)]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: moses


Maybe we have different ideas of what constitutes crippled.

Crippled to me means that the LCU or LCU's in question have been rendered combat ineffective. An example would be the poor IJA division i used as a guniea pig for the non retreat test. 6 days of attacks leaving it 95% disabled with heavy losses and a combat assault value that plummeted from 489ish all the way down to like 85. [:D]

None of my units that have been forced to retreat in the PI or Burma or China were anywhere near that condition after forced retreats. Yes they took losses but mostly in squads which are replacable unless your foolhardy.

Now this may be concievable for small units although it is certainly catastrophic. For 10 Corps of Chinese to lose this much in one day is not right. Now that you are at 50 % combat capability how will you have any chance in the next battle. So you just retreat as far as you can. But the enemy can follow as fast and as far as you can. Supply never really slows the attacker as many claim. The only hope is to find better terrain or more troops.

Depending on the situation, you may or may not get rest...but that is largely player controllable. Movement can and does slow down as a result of supply and/or fatigue. I've seen it and experienced it though i dont have the exact variables down.

What the test definately proves is that you want to avoid forced retreats at all costs but then again thats common sense. I'm interested in hearing all opinions on this. I'm not saying your point doesn't have merit but neither do i consider the system broken as on the face of it, it really doesn't work all that differently from past Grigsby games. In War in Russia (8bit) forced retreat produced similar results, the only difference being the modifed combat odds DID impact how badly you were messed up. If a unit in high fatigue was forced to retreat or retreat again, the results were often devastating. the PC successor of WiR introduced unit "Shatter" which was even worse.

As for the Chinese....your right....having a big set of corps retreat would be disasterous but not exactly ahistorical. As i said a problem for the Chinese was that if forced on their haunches with armies of low exp/morale troops, "shatter" (lost squads) was often the case. This was bad though also bad for the Japanese at times as that was part of why they couldnt' bring the chinese to decisive battle...defeated enemy armies would melt away into the countryside to eventually be reformed (i.e. drafted) at a later time.

Higher exp units lose less squads vs these low exp which helps explain why i've weathered my retreats without unacceptible losses. (though i shouldn't have put them in the position to be forced back in the first place....my bad [:@] )



[/quote]

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: moses

[(would like to see numbers on morale effect if you kept this).
.

Retreated units lost about 20 points of morale on average. Morale as a variable does not impact retreater losses. I need to re-check my notes on what morale impacts. (i often get dislexic and switch what exp does and what morale does)

[moses]

Nikademous:

I'm interested in hearing all opinions on this. I'm not saying your point doesn't have merit but neither do i consider the system broken as on the face of it, it really doesn't work all that differently from past Grigsby games

I never said "broken". I'm actually very happy with the direction you are going. I'm positiely brimming with optimism that the changes that you are looking at will positively impact land combat in the large land theaters.[:D][:D][:D]

My main problem was not just that retreats were so costly. I think they are but as you mentioned this is partially balanced out by low defender losses in more stable situations. It was the combination of very high retreat losses combined with zero attacker losses in retreat situations that made the problem of such concern. If the attacker now takes some losses the problem may be completely fixed.

I've said many times that I don't think the Chinese theater is that far from being fine. If the attacker takes a few losses and with some of the supply changes that have been talked about (destruction of supply at captured bases) I think China will be able to stop any aggressive Japanese player.

So don't take my quibbling as critisism. I'll try to stop posting so some other views can be heard.
[:D]

[Nikademus]

No problem....wasn't implying that your feedback was undue critisicsm....and it wasn't like you were using ALL CAPS or saying things that contain the word "FANBOY" [;)]

My "Broken" comments was in regards to all the other littanies that have been circulating around regarding the LCU model. While I agree its not perfect and more tweaks may be needed, I dont consider the system broken nor do i consider the attacker to have all the cards. On the contrary, all the recent changes made have benefited the defender and helped slow the pace.

Playing against a competant opponent, i'm getting pretty historical results so far. (2/42, Java has just successfully been invaded....US army still holding out at Clark/Bataan/Lin triangle. Singapore still in Allied hands. Burma front has stabilized though i've managed to cut the Burma road.

[tsimmonds]

My "Broken" comments was in regards to all the other littanies that have been circulating around regarding the LCU model. While I agree its not perfect and more tweaks may be needed, I dont consider the system broken nor do i consider the attacker to have all the cards. On the contrary, all the recent changes made have benefited the defender and helped slow the pace.

Man, ain't that the truth. I've been hammering away at Singapore and Manila for at least 6 weeks, and both places are just now beginning to show signs of strain....kudos to Halsey.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: moses

The problem with rail and roads is not speed but capacity. You may move a division 60 miles down the road and attack the next day (not really it normally takes longer) but moving 10 divisions down even several roads and launching attacks takes a bit of time. So changing some of those rails to road may be OK.

The real problem though is what happens when those divisions get to Changsa. Lets say I have 20 Chinese Corps in Changsa. If Japan enters the hex with 8 Divisions. I immediately shock attack and drive them from the hex. Decisive victory which takes a campaign lasting all of one day. Say Japan enters with 16 Divisions. Now my shock attack will not be successful while Japan will be able to get one to one attacks and in short order retreat my large force. Decisive victory to Japan.

Now I'm sure there is a certain force level at which the two forces are balanced and they end up fighting a long term battle. But this seems to be a very narrow window when you are in clear terrain. Most battles in clear terrain seem to end decisively very quickly.

This kind of highly decisive combat may well make sence with smaller units as are fighting for example in Malaysia and PI. But battles between Armies just do not resolve themselves that quickly. Nor are they generally so decisive, (the defenders 10 divisions all retreat with heavy loss-attacker takes no losses.)

One solution might be to have an odds modifier for large battles. Something like if the defender has more then 1000 AV then you need higher odds to force a retreat. If you have 2000 AV then you need even higher odds. This has the advantage of having no impact on most of the other theaters. In the SRA you won't see 1000 AV in a hex that often.

A change like this would make combat a little more stable in the large land theaters.

Why are some of the obvious problems ignored? Stacking is a major problem here folks...the LC model just can't deal with the massive numbers and no stacking limit basically turns the game into land based deat star confrontations. Not only that, but it is questionable that to all these units could effectively be deployed in a hex (atolls are rediculous). Why the aversion to a stacking limit? The AI? Hope not because it means the game is being lamed by the need to perpetuate an AI which does not work.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Why the aversion to a stacking limit?

Why ask questions to which you already know the answer too? [;)]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

Why the aversion to a stacking limit?

Why ask questions to which you already know the answer too? [;)]

To highlight the possibility that previous design decisions sometimes benefit from a second visitation of the common sense patrol.[8D]

[Nikademus]

To highlight the possibility that previous design decisions sometimes benefit from a second visitation of the common sense patrol.[8D]

I recall some very plain common sense arguments being wielded when this subject was discussed and not all of them favored a stacking limit.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

To highlight the possibility that previous design decisions sometimes benefit from a second visitation of the common sense patrol.[8D]

I recall some very plain common sense arguments being wielded when this subject was discussed and not all of them favored a stacking limit.

I can't remember any but I'm not simply thinking of a hard limit here. Too hard to implement (AI, unit sizes etc). I was thinking of a penalty imposed on stacking beyond a certain point which effects offensive and defensive AVs. Much like the flak penalties if TFs are too big, a diminishing returns approach might keep players from plopping everything into bases.

On RRs. In BOB and BTR, RR were dealt with as base installations. I though this a great approach considering the scale.I wonder if this could be adapted to WITP. Instead of having the RR line reflect terrain movement, why not just use it to signify connection between bases. No effect on movement. Land units would be moved between bases like air units using Rail Transfer. The movement rate would have to be measured better (aircraft travel by rail almost anywhere in a day!), say 3 hexes per day (problem because of turn based system?..abstact it by disrupting/fatiging unit more depending on length of transfer). Movement could only be initiated at bases. They are also viable targets and damage would reduce the flow of supplies, resources, etc.

[moses]

Ron Saureracker:

Why are some of the obvious problems ignored?

I think we have to accept at some point that land combat in this game is an enormously difficult modeling problem. What game attempts to model so many different types and scales of land combat in one system? I can't recall anything comparable to this game.

No matter how brilliant and hard-working the developers may be we will always be left with an imperfect model. We should not be too hard on those who are attempting a task which may well be impossible.

They appear to be seriously looking at improvments which is what we should expect. I hope they continue. But at some time in the future I expect a post that says basically "This is as good as can be done. Accept the flaws and have fun"

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I can't remember any but I'm not simply thinking of a hard limit here. Too hard to implement (AI, unit sizes etc). I was thinking of a penalty imposed on stacking beyond a certain point which effects offensive and defensive AVs. Much like the flak penalties if TFs are too big, a diminishing returns approach might keep players from plopping everything into bases.

Stay away from the Wild Turkey [;)]

Basic problem with this is that no set point for such a penalty would apply to all situations.

[Nikademus]

ORIGINAL: moses

Ron Saureracker:

Why are some of the obvious problems ignored?

I think we have to accept at some point that land combat in this game is an enormously difficult modeling problem. What game attempts to model so many different types and scales of land combat in one system? I can't recall anything comparable to this game.

Got that right [;)]. As i've said the LCU model is easily the most complex and least understood metric in the game. So much goes on under the hood that its very hard to nail it down and there's a built in variability that makes things still more fun.

I give thanks that at least its been far improved over the UV model and provides a better pace and feel than before.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I can't remember any but I'm not simply thinking of a hard limit here. Too hard to implement (AI, unit sizes etc). I was thinking of a penalty imposed on stacking beyond a certain point which effects offensive and defensive AVs. Much like the flak penalties if TFs are too big, a diminishing returns approach might keep players from plopping everything into bases.

Stay away from the Wild Turkey [;)]

Basic problem with this is that no set point for such a penalty would apply to all situations.

Like what? If overstacked, one must assume that some units are in rear echelon positions or something and not fully capable of participating in assault/defence. If air attacked, must assume (unlike CD fire for some reason but the penalty would alleviate this somewhat) that all units are not at ground zero. I don't see too many situations where a penalty would not be applicable.

The Bird? Only had it once and that was enough! Rotgut!