Matrix Games Forums

January 25/26 1942

Nothing significant happened. Oscars swept Rangoon, but P-40E and Hurricane reinforcements are shortly arriving.

Units lost in the Philippines and rebuilt begin arriving at the Eastern US base.

The Shokaku and Soryu appear to be back in the Bismarck Sea.

January 26/27 1942

Chuhsien captured by Japan.

Herwin,
 
I have to say something here.  You aren't playing the game.  You are playing what you think the game should be.  I'm not sure why you are doing this?  You don't seem to be enjoying it.  If you play the game, then stack as much as you can in the best defensive terrain (which is not cities in the open for chinese) while maintaining supply lines.  It's pretty simple. 
 
You can rip on anything in the game and be correct.  Air model has issues.  Naval has issues.  Land has issues.  But we aren't talking about perfection.  We are playing a game, a damn good one in comparison.  Learn the model (for good or for bad) and maximize it. 
 
 
 

ORIGINAL: vicberg

Herwin,

I have to say something here.  You aren't playing the game.  You are playing what you think the game should be.  I'm not sure why you are doing this?  You don't seem to be enjoying it.  If you play the game, then stack as much as you can in the best defensive terrain (which is not cities in the open for chinese) while maintaining supply lines.  It's pretty simple. 

You can rip on anything in the game and be correct.  Air model has issues.  Naval has issues.  Land has issues.  But we aren't talking about perfection.  We are playing a game, a damn good one in comparison.  Learn the model (for good or for bad) and maximize it. 

Jim Dunnegan explains why I (and the majority of players) play wargames: "By far the most common reason for playing the games is to experience history."

January 27/28 1942

Blitzk's comment: "Pain at Singapore !"

As a gamer, I'm happy my defence is working. As someone interested in the history, I'm not so sure:

Ground combat at Singapore (50,84)
 
Japanese Shock attack
 
Attacking force 63164 troops, 507 guns, 390 vehicles, Assault Value = 1982
 
Defending force 50200 troops, 560 guns, 285 vehicles, Assault Value = 864
 
Japanese adjusted assault: 1499
 
Allied adjusted defense: 4319
 
Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 3)
 
Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+), disruption(-)
 
Japanese ground losses:
      8666 casualties reported
         Squads: 15 destroyed, 274 disabled
         Non Combat: 79 destroyed, 383 disabled
         Engineers: 45 destroyed, 66 disabled
      Guns lost 7 (2 destroyed, 5 disabled)
      Vehicles lost 82 (4 destroyed, 78 disabled)
 
 
Allied ground losses:
      4092 casualties reported
         Squads: 42 destroyed, 106 disabled
         Non Combat: 35 destroyed, 130 disabled
         Engineers: 1 destroyed, 15 disabled
      Vehicles lost 41 (10 destroyed, 31 disabled)
      Units destroyed 1
 
 
Assaulting units:
    12th Engineer Regiment
    56th Recon Regiment
    41st Infantry Regiment
    148th Infantry Regiment
    56th Engineer Regiment
    5th Recon Regiment
    5th Engineer Regiment
    Imperial Guards Division
    15th Ind Engineer Regiment
    4th Ind Engineer Regiment
    56th Infantry Regiment
    55th Infantry Regiment
    42nd Infantry Regiment
    1st Tank Regiment
    14th Tank Regiment
    11th Infantry Regiment
    21st Infantry Regiment
    23rd Ind Engineer Regiment
    113th Infantry Regiment
    114th Infantry Regiment
    91st Naval Guard Unit
    3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
    3rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
    56th Field Artillery Regiment
    5th Field Artillery Regiment
    32nd Field AA Battalion
    7th Field Construction Battalion
    20th AA Regiment
    18th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
    34th Field AA Battalion
    5th Field Construction Battalion
 
Defending units:
    1st Hyderabad Battalion
    3rd Cavalry Regiment
    1st Manchester Battalion
    2nd Gordons Battalion
    1st Malay Battalion
    SSVF Brigade
    2nd Malay Battalion
    2nd Loyal Battalion
    27th Australian Brigade
    2/17 Dogra Battalion
    Singapore Fortress
    22nd Australian Brigade
    9th Indian Division
    Singapore Base Force
    Malaya Army
    2nd HK&S Heavy AA Regiment
    224 Group RAF
    113th RAF Adv Base Force
    Malayan Air Wing
    110th RAF Adv Base Force
    111th RAF Adv Base Force
    223 Group RAF
    112th RAF Adv Base Force
    22nd Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
    1st HK&S Heavy AA Regiment
    III Indian Corps
    1st Indian Heavy AA Regiment
    2nd ISF Base Force
    3rd Heavy AA Regiment
    24th NZ Pioneer Coy
    AHQ Far East
    109th RN Base Force

The attacking force is five divisions; the defending is two. Singapore is behind a water obstacle and is urban terrain. My opponent is having problems. Historically, the Singapore garrison should have held out, but its water supplies were vulnerable, and there was a civilian population to consider--although the anti-Chinese pogrom (100,000 dead) the Japanese followed up their capture with probably killed at least as many as would have died in a siege--so the British commander surrendered. That's very hard to model in the game. To storm Singapore, I think the Japanese really needs eight or nine divisions (4500 AV), so the repulse isn't out of line with reality.

However, I also think the game handles the operation incorrectly. In urban terrain, the problem is target acquisition--target engagement wasn't that big a deal. My take is that during WWII, technology was least important during a urban warfare. At the ranges we're concerned with, any heavy weapon could overmatch a squad, and anything else was at a disadvantage, so the problem is moving that heavy weapon into that position without the enemy taking it out. Firepower suppression was hard to pull off, so it was mostly about seeing him before he saw you. The exchange rate reflected the training and experience of the two armies, and it was an exchange rate, much like what was seen in fighter-versus-fighter combat, of slightly more than three assaulting casualties per defending casualty given forces of equivalent training and skill. My opponent has about two-to-one superiority, so this should take quite a while.

Singapore historically was certainly more complicated than first meets the eye. In addition to what you noted, Percival was bluffed into surrender by an attacking commander who's force was about out of supply and inadequate for storming the city. On the other hand, the IJA forces seemed much better quality and had crossed the river against resistance and infiltrated the swamp (to the west, I believe?), something the defenders had thought most unlikely.

As bad as the atrocities were after the surrender, we can only speculate on what might have happened during and after an eventual capture of the city had resistance continued.

January 28/29 1942

Minor actions.

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Singapore historically was certainly more complicated than first meets the eye. In addition to what you noted, Percival was bluffed into surrender by an attacking commander who's force was about out of supply and inadequate for storming the city. On the other hand, the IJA forces seemed much better quality and had crossed the river against resistance and infiltrated the swamp (to the west, I believe?), something the defenders had thought most unlikely.

As bad as the atrocities were after the surrender, we can only speculate on what might have happened during and after an eventual capture of the city had resistance continued.

The Japanese didn't respect adversaries who surrendered. A prolonged and bloody resistance might have protected the civilians better.

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Singapore historically was certainly more complicated than first meets the eye. In addition to what you noted, Percival was bluffed into surrender by an attacking commander who's force was about out of supply and inadequate for storming the city. On the other hand, the IJA forces seemed much better quality and had crossed the river against resistance and infiltrated the swamp (to the west, I believe?), something the defenders had thought most unlikely.

As bad as the atrocities were after the surrender, we can only speculate on what might have happened during and after an eventual capture of the city had resistance continued.

The Japanese didn't respect adversaries who surrendered. A prolonged and bloody resistance might have protected the civilians better.

I understand, but it really depended upon the individuals. At Wake Island, wasn't the mass execution of the defenders only prevented by a senior commander intervening?

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: witpqs

Singapore historically was certainly more complicated than first meets the eye. In addition to what you noted, Percival was bluffed into surrender by an attacking commander who's force was about out of supply and inadequate for storming the city. On the other hand, the IJA forces seemed much better quality and had crossed the river against resistance and infiltrated the swamp (to the west, I believe?), something the defenders had thought most unlikely.

As bad as the atrocities were after the surrender, we can only speculate on what might have happened during and after an eventual capture of the city had resistance continued.

The Japanese didn't respect adversaries who surrendered. A prolonged and bloody resistance might have protected the civilians better.

I understand, but it really depended upon the individuals. At Wake Island, wasn't the mass execution of the defenders only prevented by a senior commander intervening?

The civilians on the island when it surrendered were kept for forced labour and executed in October 1943.

January 29/30 1942

Minor actions.

January 30/31 1942

A convoy of very small merchies trying to sneak into Singapore runs into a Japanese sub...

Japanese bombardment at Singapore is hit by heavy counter-battery fire. So far, so good.

January 31/February 1, 1942

Japanese shock attack at Nanyang reduces the defences one level.

Bombardment attack at Singapore.

Probe at Rabaul establishes that the garrison is about division strength.

February 1/2 1942

Defences at Nanyang rebuilt one level.

Bombardment attack at Singapore.

Something may be up in the Solomons. I think I'll redeploy into position to intercept it. I also don't want my CVTFs following predictable tracks if there are subs entering the area.

A Japanese sub appears to be headed towards Darwin. I'll try to get a reception committee organised. (I have some experience developing ship tracking algorithms, and I'm applying it here.)

February 2/3 1942

Deliberate attack at Singapore.

Attacking force 60163 troops, 504 guns, 390 vehicles, Assault Value = 1881
 
Defending force 48652 troops, 564 guns, 270 vehicles, Assault Value = 798
 
Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 2
 
Japanese adjusted assault: 1572
 
Allied adjusted defense: 1711
 
Japanese assault odds: 1 to 2 (fort level 2)
 
Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker:
 
Japanese ground losses:
      3652 casualties reported
         Squads: 8 destroyed, 195 disabled
         Non Combat: 42 destroyed, 163 disabled
         Engineers: 27 destroyed, 57 disabled
      Guns lost 1 (1 destroyed, 0 disabled)
      Vehicles lost 45 (10 destroyed, 35 disabled)
      Units destroyed 1
 
 
Allied ground losses:
      4088 casualties reported
         Squads: 8 destroyed, 161 disabled
         Non Combat: 8 destroyed, 306 disabled
         Engineers: 0 destroyed, 28 disabled
 
 
Assaulting units:
    15th Ind Engineer Regiment
    56th Engineer Regiment
    41st Infantry Regiment
    113th Infantry Regiment
    5th Engineer Regiment
    5th Recon Regiment
    4th Ind Engineer Regiment
    114th Infantry Regiment
    56th Recon Regiment
    11th Infantry Regiment
    55th Infantry Regiment
    56th Infantry Regiment
    21st Infantry Regiment
    14th Tank Regiment
    148th Infantry Regiment
    42nd Infantry Regiment
    Imperial Guards Division
    1st Tank Regiment
    23rd Ind Engineer Regiment
    91st Naval Guard Unit
    18th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
    7th Field Construction Battalion
    20th AA Regiment
    3rd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
    32nd Field AA Battalion
    5th Field Artillery Regiment
    56th Field Artillery Regiment
    34th Field AA Battalion
    3rd Ind. Mountain Gun Regiment
    5th Field Construction Battalion
 
Defending units:
    27th Australian Brigade
    SSVF Brigade
    3rd Cavalry Regiment
    1st Manchester Battalion
    1st Malay Battalion
    2nd Loyal Battalion
    22nd Australian Brigade
    2nd Gordons Battalion
    2/17 Dogra Battalion
    Singapore Fortress
    2nd Malay Battalion
    9th Indian Division
    24th NZ Pioneer Coy
    Malaya Army
    Malayan Air Wing
    111th RAF Adv Base Force
    224 Group RAF
    Singapore Base Force
    112th RAF Adv Base Force
    1st Indian Heavy AA Regiment
    223 Group RAF
    110th RAF Adv Base Force
    2nd ISF Base Force
    III Indian Corps
    113th RAF Adv Base Force
    2nd HK&S Heavy AA Regiment
    AHQ Far East
    22nd Indian Mountain Gun Regiment
    1st HK&S Heavy AA Regiment
    3rd Heavy AA Regiment
    109th RN Base Force

Japanese Netty base identified in Eastern Borneo. I'm sending AVPs to Shortlands and Tulagi to give me early warning outposts. I want to know whether Rabaul is running torpedo bombers.

February 3/4 1942

Insert standard comment about the imaginary ground combat model

Shock attack at Nanyang reduces fortifications to level 1.

Bombardment at Singapore has almost no effect.

Deliberate attack at Wuchow reduces fortifications to level 1.

I'll put my thoughts here, rather than disturb the newbies.

1. I think the naval game is pretty good. No complaints.
2. I think the air game is generally pretty good, but I think the game needs an air tasking order. That is, the player should be able to identify his/her priority targets and missions, and the game engine then uses them to allocate sorties. Individual squadrons might or might not be taskable.
3. I think the game needs an 'amphibious landing plan' capability. This would give the commander of the operation the ability to control the deployment of reserves and the detailed schedule of phases.
4. The game needs to model within-hex ground combat. The basic element being fought over should be one or more 50 square kilometre areas (1% of a hex). Casualties need to be more realistic, too--take into account target acquisition as part of the target engagement process so that task organisation is motivated to be 'right-sized'. Model the different results of stealth reconnaissance, reconnaissance in force, bombardment, hasty attack, deliberate attack, screening, hasty defense, positional defense, fortified defense, defense of a river line or beach, urban defense, mountain operations, pursuit, delay, retreat, mobile battle, and exploitation within the hex.

ORIGINAL: herwin

I'll put my thoughts here, rather than disturb the newbies.

1. I think the naval game is pretty good. No complaints.
2. I think the air game is generally pretty good, but I think the game needs an air tasking order. That is, the player should be able to identify his/her priority targets and missions, and the game engine then uses them to allocate sorties. Individual squadrons might or might not be taskable.
3. I think the game needs an 'amphibious landing plan' capability. This would give the commander of the operation the ability to control the deployment of reserves and the detailed schedule of phases.
4. The game needs to model within-hex ground combat. The basic element being fought over should be one or more 50 square kilometre areas (1% of a hex). Casualties need to be more realistic, too--take into account target acquisition as part of the target engagement process so that task organisation is motivated to be 'right-sized'. Model the different results of stealth reconnaissance, reconnaissance in force, bombardment, hasty attack, deliberate attack, screening, hasty defense, positional defense, fortified defense, defense of a river line or beach, urban defense, mountain operations, pursuit, delay, retreat, mobile battle, and exploitation within the hex.

Herwin -

Excellent points. Implementation of the above would be the next major step in the evolution of AE - moving it from "outstanding" to "phenomenal". I realize that this would call for major code changes - far beyond what I comprehend (not to mention endless hours of work); but the bottom line is that AE has a solid following because of it's unmatched depth, detail and realism; and continues to draw and excite creative talent to do more as the limits have yet to be reached.

Mac

February 4/5 1942

The only substantive operations were a bombardment of Singapore. My opponent is using airstrikes on my airfield to distract my engineers from working on field fortifications. He hasn't noticed yet that I have some small merchies sneaking into Singapore harbour and topping up my supply dumps. I don't intend to lose because my supply was drained off, and this allows me to keep my ground combat units at something approaching full strength.

I mentioned above I'd like to have an air tasking order capability. That comment was posted elsewhere and drew a lot of flak that made me suspect some of the people commenting didn't know what an ATO is. So go here for a definition. There are two underlying ideas that need emphasis:
1. The ATO is what not how. People complain about the amount of micromanagement in the game. That's because the player needs to define both what and how. I'd like to get the player out of the business worrying about how.
2. To implement the ATO, commanders think in terms of sorties, not aircraft. That is, an air task requires a certain number of sorties armed and equipped in a certain way. Squadrons and groups are sortie generators. I'd like to get the player out of the business of micromanaging sortie generation.

Combining those two ideas would produce a simpler and more abstract user interface, one better matched to how commanders operated in WWII.

Note, the game already does this fairly well in naval ops.