The benefits of active defense

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Elladan

ORIGINAL: herwin
I'm attracted to it because once I take it I'm in a strong central position. But it is a bugger to take. I nearly had it when that **bzfk** shock attack was imposed by the game engine.

Could you explain what you mean? Can't say I understood much.

Mountain lines favour the offence. Once you take the pass of your choice, the defender cannot counterattack effectively. You can then attack into the lowlands in the direction you choose.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Actually, Baguio is on the CHS map, and is in the mountains. I don't recall if it has much of an airstrip in CHS (I'm at work right now and so don't have the game to check), and it has no resources (there are resources in three of the surrounding hexes - San Fernando, Taguigian (sp?) and Clark).

From your description, it will work as a final defensive bastion but you will not be able to either reinforce or withdraw troops that are holed up there. They'll just be tough to root out...

This must be a change. I was upset it was missing - and as of 1.55 - it was not on Andrew Brown's Extended map. It first appeared on the RHS Level 5 map system - which IS Andrwe Brown's Extended map - with additions like this one.

If it has no resources, this is a misunderstanding: the area was developed after the American colonization of the Philippines because rumors of gold led to a gold rush. [Spanish expeditions were routinely massacred - they never did find the gold.] The area was developed as a mining area - but has more than gold. It has the largest copper mine in Asia. How do you get from that to no resources? To which add it is rice rich - so WITP resources apply - both resource points and supply points are generated.

To which add ONLY RHS has it malaria free. This is a slot thing- if you want a malaria free hex you must give up one of the existing ones. Andrew taught me how - told me the six slots that were malaria free IF the location is in the malaria zone.

[anarchyintheuk]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

.
My statements were formed from a general observation of aars. Your database/experience is obviously different from mine.

In the context of RHS I agree w/ what you say. However, the ability to retreat at will from forward defenses in Burma and Malaya should be allowable as long as the IJN/IJA can deviate from the historical opening.

Just my $.02.

Edited for visual clarity and the fact that it just looks cooler.

You lost me here: how could Japan NOT diviate from the historical opening? And why in the world would we play a game in which they had to do that? The complaint that the Japanese know too much about Allied positions should apply here: if they come in exactly as programmed the Allies - knowing exactly what that means - surely can frustrate many of the moves. Further - all scenarios I have seen have vast amounts of the Japanese units not tasked at all: they are just to sit around?

Another aspect of my confusion with your comments is that I do NOT object to retreating from forward bases - I object to retreating from ALL bases, forward, middle and rear - without fighting for ANY of them. The Allies should indeed be free to move - and many players are amazed I don't say "sit in port waiting for air strikes" - although going to sea at PH may be worse than riding out the storm in port - you decide - not me.
But moving should not equate to "everybody run - and no base is ever damaged when attacked." I don't think the Allies are not free to move or even retreat - but I think they are obligated - to the extent a commander who didn't would be imprisoned - to fight. And I also think they should not send LOCAL units to DISTANT lands where that is unlawful, ineffective and impolitic.

My comments were clearly limited to Burma and Malaya (with historical opening meaning first turn). By 'retreat at will' I do mean buggering off w/o a shot being fired, why would my comments cause you confusion?

This:

You can push the edge of the envelope - but never - say - abandon Malaya (except for Singapore)

and this:

I don't think the Allies are not free to move or even retreat - but I think they are obligated - to the extent a commander who didn't would be imprisoned - to fight.

led me to believe that you were against retreating from forward bases or in favor of not allowing a base to be abandoned without a fight. In Malaya and Burma I advocate running away. Seems pretty clear to me. If a rl Malaya and Burma commander had to deal with the WitP combat system and the effects of defeat/retreat/pursuit on disruption and disablement of their lcus they would have used a term from an Abbott & Costello movie instead of us using one from Monty Python.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

.
My statements were formed from a general observation of aars. Your database/experience is obviously different from mine.

In the context of RHS I agree w/ what you say. However, the ability to retreat at will from forward defenses in Burma and Malaya should be allowable as long as the IJN/IJA can deviate from the historical opening.

Just my $.02.

Edited for visual clarity and the fact that it just looks cooler.

You lost me here: how could Japan NOT diviate from the historical opening? And why in the world would we play a game in which they had to do that? The complaint that the Japanese know too much about Allied positions should apply here: if they come in exactly as programmed the Allies - knowing exactly what that means - surely can frustrate many of the moves. Further - all scenarios I have seen have vast amounts of the Japanese units not tasked at all: they are just to sit around?

Another aspect of my confusion with your comments is that I do NOT object to retreating from forward bases - I object to retreating from ALL bases, forward, middle and rear - without fighting for ANY of them. The Allies should indeed be free to move - and many players are amazed I don't say "sit in port waiting for air strikes" - although going to sea at PH may be worse than riding out the storm in port - you decide - not me.
But moving should not equate to "everybody run - and no base is ever damaged when attacked." I don't think the Allies are not free to move or even retreat - but I think they are obligated - to the extent a commander who didn't would be imprisoned - to fight. And I also think they should not send LOCAL units to DISTANT lands where that is unlawful, ineffective and impolitic.

My comments were clearly limited to Burma and Malaya (with historical opening meaning first turn). By 'retreat at will' I do mean buggering off w/o a shot being fired, why would my comments cause you confusion?

This:

You can push the edge of the envelope - but never - say - abandon Malaya (except for Singapore)

and this:

I don't think the Allies are not free to move or even retreat - but I think they are obligated - to the extent a commander who didn't would be imprisoned - to fight.

led me to believe that you were against retreating from forward bases or in favor of not allowing a base to be abandoned without a fight. In Malaya and Burma I advocate running away. Seems pretty clear to me. If a rl Malaya and Burma commander had to deal with the WitP combat system and the effects of defeat/retreat/pursuit on disruption and disablement of their lcus they would have used a term from an Abbott & Costello movie instead of us using one from Monty Python.

It is anything but clear. Vast sums were spent on defenses - to be used. Reinforcements are en route - even from outside the theater - because it is a STRATEGIC decision by your boss - Winston Churchill- that you will fight for them. Fail to try and you would be courts martialed - in my view properly so. And that is only the POLITICAL side of the matter.

In MILITARY terms you are virtually aiding and abetting the enemy. It is your job to deny the enemy bases and infractructures and resources - to delay and damage when you cannot deny - and to cause him to suffer casualties when/where/if he comes. Not opposing him means any little packet is enough - and he can go many places at the same time - with minimal risk. Opposition means he must concentrate - and then feed the concentrations with a LOC - offering opportunities for any with military vision to hit him and hurt him (not just by sinking the ships laden with invasion troops and supplies, but by causing casualties in the fight for various places). There is no worse strategy for the Allies I can think of - and I might as well play the AI - which needs only seconds to say "everybody run to Singapore" and "nobody go reinforce Malaya"

The Japanese offensive machine is fragile and limited in both size and time: the more opposition you give, the less far it will get. No opposition limits the enemy not a bit - and only HIS boldness prevents him from siezing India, Australia, name it. YOU are giving him the time, forces and bases to do any such thing. Opposition naturally leads to exhaustion - depletion of experienced pilots - demoralization and weakening of critical land units second - loss of ships third - so that at some point he must stop advancing - and then it is your turn. But lack of opposition may make his position so strong and his force so undepleted he can keep up the offensive right through 1943. Then you will have a lot less local supplies and base infrastructure to fight with and be far from what he needs - so your battle is a lot tougher - assuming you did not lose an auto victory check.