Page 1 of 1
PLEASE EXPLAIN
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:43 pm
by DesertedFox
Can some one please explain how the combat results below is a victory for the allies.
The situation, 4 new units (completely fresh) allied units crossed a river and together with the two units already there executed a shock attack on the Japanese units that have been surrounded for 6 months and bombarded daily.
A couple more of these type attacks and we might have to ask for terms for our surrender, which is ironic considering the combat odds were 43 to 1 in my favour.
Also, can some one explain to me how these Japanese units are still alive in a malaria infested enviornment for 6 months without any food other than berriers? Oh and not only alive and kicking, but kicking arse in combat against fresh troops....please fix this crap!!!!!!!!
Oh and do not respond with well, the Japanese losses are most lijkely all killed and yours are only disabled, cause it will take me forever to kill these guys off at 168 casualties each assault, when there are 22,411 still able to resist. What, isn't 6 months startvation enough.
Ground combat at 32,23
Allied Shock attack
Attacking force 44876 troops, 413 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 1162
Defending force 22411 troops, 1 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 416
Allied max assault: 936 - adjusted assault: 1407
Japanese max defense: 365 - adjusted defense: 32
Allied assault odds: 43 to 1
Japanese ground losses:
168 casualties reported
Allied ground losses:
1093 casualties reported
Guns lost 20,
Mark
RE: PLEASE EXPLAIN
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:08 pm
by panda124c
FOW aka "The computer lies"
RE: PLEASE EXPLAIN
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:11 pm
by tsimmonds
You playing vs the computer on "very hard"? They don't need no stinking supplies....[;)]
RE: PLEASE EXPLAIN
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 6:02 pm
by Yamato hugger
Im curious, how do you know they have no food? Supplies could have been stockpiled. Supplies can be flown in or shipped in (if its a coastal hex). Japs get LOTS of air transports and a good Jap player uses them.
RE: PLEASE EXPLAIN
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:35 pm
by KDonovan
surrounded japanese troops are tough to deal with, as you get results like the one you posted. I find the best way to deal with them is just ignore them. By that i mean, just leave a Brigade behind to gaurd them and move on.
and if you so please you can use the opportunity to train up your air units with ground attack missions.
here's an excerpt from my game.........here i've had these Japanese troops stuck in the jungles of Guadacanal for +18 months. In the beginning the Japanese assualt value was about 120....so instead of wasting about 3-5 Inf Div's trying to finish them off, i just parked a Brigade there, and launched attack from time to time. As you can see the AV value of the japanese have slowly dropped to 39
Ground combat at Lunga
Allied Deliberate attack
Attacking force 15542 troops, 136 guns, 18 vehicles, Assault Value = 149
Defending force 13065 troops, 0 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 43
Allied max assault: 132 - adjusted assault: 207
Japanese max defense: 30 - adjusted defense: 39
Allied assault odds: 5 to 1
Japanese ground losses:
42 casualties reported
Allied ground losses:
62 casualties reported
Guns lost 3
RE: PLEASE EXPLAIN
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 7:42 pm
by ChezDaJez
First of all, shock attacks nearly always present more casualties to the attacker than to the defender, especially when crossing a river.
The fact that the Japanese adjusted defense value is only 32 out of a posible 365 tells you that they are indeed out of supply. I don't know what terrain modifiers there are in this hex but they don't seem to have much impact for the defense. Your troops are fresh (a least a good majority) and in supply as evidenced by the upward adjustment of the attack value. You outnumber the Japanese only by a ratio of 2:1 though your combat power greatly exceeds the enemy's.
Historically, Japanese troops, even when starved, were notoriously difficult to root out and never surrendered en masse. You will eventually force a retreat or attrite them slowly in place. They may at somepoint attempt a banzai charge in which case they will suffer tremendous casualties. These are reasonable historical outcomes.
Chez
RE: PLEASE EXPLAIN
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 8:15 pm
by niceguy2005
Chez is right. They are out of supply, unless you are playing on very hard against the AI, then they never run out of supply.
Troops shock attacking across a river shouldn't be viewed in the same terms as any other attack. It seems to follow a different routine. What happened is your disruption goes way up when crossing a river. FOW will apply, but I think most of what you see in terms of casualities is the result of 4 units crossing a river under fire...confusion reigns, people fall out of boats...hit their head...twist their ankle...ropes break...guns fall in the river. Most of the disablements will repair quickly.
What is a little surprising to me is that the Japanese weren't forced to retreat, did they have a path of retreat open? Enemy units (allied and japanese) become next to impossible to eliminate once their retreat path is blocked.
RE: PLEASE EXPLAIN
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:08 pm
by Exinfernis
Complementary to Fox's frustration, I would like to add my own and kindly ask for some tips.
Stock 15. Mid-October 44.
Vexing point A: Bangkok - I have 180k troops in there, Vs 35K Japs. Fatigue/disruption levels ok (below 50). Experience over 80 on average. Rangoon/Moulmein/Tavoy/Victoria Point host nearly 2k planes, laying waste to everything for months. I initially bombarded the city defenders for some turns , then launched shock attacks. I managed to knock off an entrenchment level (by fluke?) and since then zip. I have artillery aplenty, numerous engineer formations and 6 armored battalions. All leaders are of sufficient land skill and aggression levels. The japs are in supply though, and in growing desperation, I dispatched a salient force to cross the river and cutt off their supply lines. However, it takes ages. A good 48 tuns still.
Every turn, nearly a thousand planes target Bangkok (noth airfield and ground attacks). Is there something I should have done to give me the edge? Like targetting the port facilities? Or cutting their supplies lines is the only way to go?
Vexing point B: Sapporo - Similar story here, overwhelming numbers, but can't get better odds than 0:1. Have a question on this though; is Ominato linked to Hokaido so as to enable supplies to go through overland? A possible mistake is not to have bombed Hakodate, allowing for supply levels to remain adequate.
This is my first game to progress to such a late date and it is the first time I experience such stiff resistance. Btw, I play on hard difficulty setting.
Any pointers appreciated.
RE: PLEASE EXPLAIN
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:17 pm
by wdolson
This is one of my pet peeves with ground combat. Except on atolls, units that are isolated become virtually invincible until their AV drops to 0, then they get killed off like flies. I've had large pockets of Japanese troops that took months to eliminate. Once isolated and out of supply, they shouldn't last more than a week.
I have seen this same pattern several times. It's a problem with the land combat engine.
Bill
RE: PLEASE EXPLAIN
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 9:57 pm
by DesertedFox
Hi guys,
Thanks for your responses. The terrain in question is clear and the Japanese units are unable to retreat as I have occupied every hex around them. I know the Japanese were pretty resilient but after 6 months siege without food, they would have capitulated by now, and a shock attack causes 168 casualties with about 3 1/2 division attacking, hhhmmm not much of an assault. I have read previously on this forum the Chinese have performed these super human feats as well, its just not realistic.
Mark
RE: PLEASE EXPLAIN
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 10:33 pm
by niceguy2005
ORIGINAL: Exinfernis
Vexing point A: Bangkok - I have 180k troops in there, Vs 35K Japs. Fatigue/disruption levels ok (below 50). Experience over 80 on average. Rangoon/Moulmein/Tavoy/Victoria Point host nearly 2k planes, laying waste to everything for months. I initially bombarded the city defenders for some turns , then launched shock attacks. I managed to knock off an entrenchment level (by fluke?) and since then zip. I have artillery aplenty, numerous engineer formations and 6 armored battalions. All leaders are of sufficient land skill and aggression levels. The japs are in supply though, and in growing desperation, I dispatched a salient force to cross the river and cutt off their supply lines. However, it takes ages. A good 48 tuns still.
Don't shock attack, use deliberate attack. Shock attack is like ordering your guys to banzaii right into the teeth of the forts. Use deliberate attacks until the forts are down to zero.
If forts are coming down every 2-3 shock attacks get more combat engineers on the job.
Every turn, nearly a thousand planes target Bangkok (noth airfield and ground attacks). Is there something I should have done to give me the edge? Like targetting the port facilities? Or cutting their supplies lines is the only way to go?
Target airfields and ports to reduce supplies. Once supplies are low target ground troops...bomb ground troops at least 1-2 days in advance of an attack to raise defender disruption. Fighter bombers and light bombers are good for this also.
RE: PLEASE EXPLAIN
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:12 pm
by Reg
ORIGINAL: wdolson
This is one of my pet peeves with ground combat. Except on atolls, units that are isolated become virtually invincible until their AV drops to 0, then they get killed off like flies. I've had large pockets of Japanese troops that took months to eliminate. Once isolated and out of supply, they shouldn't last more than a week.
I have seen this same pattern several times. It's a problem with the land combat engine.
Bill
How long was the Gona campaign???
The Japanese forces were cut off, out of supply and surounded but took considerably longer than a week to be eliminated. (I was going to say capitulate but they didn't).
RE: PLEASE EXPLAIN
Posted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 11:57 pm
by RUPD3658
ORIGINAL: Deserted Fox
Hi guys,
Thanks for your responses. The terrain in question is clear and the Japanese units are unable to retreat as I have occupied every hex around them. I know the Japanese were pretty resilient but after 6 months siege without food, they would have capitulated by now, and a shock attack causes 168 casualties with about 3 1/2 division attacking, hhhmmm not much of an assault. I have read previously on this forum the Chinese have performed these super human feats as well, its just not realistic.
Mark
Once you disable all the AV the unit will be wiped out by attrition. Bombard for a few days (3-4) then throw in a deliberate attack. Wash, rinse, and repeat and the units will disappear.
RE: PLEASE EXPLAIN
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 12:01 am
by Exinfernis
Info digested. back to the front
Kudos
RE: PLEASE EXPLAIN
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 1:02 am
by wdolson
ORIGINAL: wdolson
This is one of my pet peeves with ground combat. Except on atolls, units that are isolated become virtually invincible until their AV drops to 0, then they get killed off like flies. I've had large pockets of Japanese troops that took months to eliminate. Once isolated and out of supply, they shouldn't last more than a week.
I have seen this same pattern several times. It's a problem with the land combat engine.
Bill
ORIGINAL: Reg
How long was the Gona campaign???
The Japanese forces were cut off, out of supply and surounded but took considerably longer than a week to be eliminated. (I was going to say capitulate but they didn't).
The battle for Buna/Gona took about three months, but the Allied troops consisted of some highly experienced, but badly depleted Australian units and one poorly equipped and poorly prepared American division.
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-battles/ww2/gona-buna-san.htm
I don't know when along that time line the Buna base would qualify as being captured. For most of those three months the Japanese still held onto what would be a base in game terms. I would expect that their situation detriorated pretty quickly once Buna base fell.
The Japanese also held onto Guadalcanal for almost six months, but the Tokyo Express was getting enough supply through to keep the troops alive (barely) and the American troops were both very inexperienced and poorly equipped for much of the campaign.
The game doesn't appear to interpret 0 supply the same way I would. If a unit has 0 supply, that means that it is not only out of food, but out of ammo too. Any kind of attack should result in huge casualties since all they have to defend themselves with are bayonettes.
It is completely unrealistic for 1000 AV of experienced troops to attack an isolated pocket of resistance low on supplies, get 10:1 or better odds and the enemy only take a handful of casualties and the attacking troops take 3 times more. Especially if this goes on for a while. The defending troops would start losing combat effectiveness as soon as their supplies began to get low, this would further decrease after several days of fighting. Without the facilities of a town for support, they would have to set up field hospitals in the open, which would turn a lot of non-mortal wounds into life threatening situations. Fatigue for the troops would also increase dramatically since nobody is able to sleep indoors and they are in constant combat, knowing that the end is approaching.
When supply hits zero, troops should start dropping in droves from starvation and they would have nothing to shoot back with, so enemy attacks would wipe them out in huge numbers.
In the real war, the Japanese would bonzai charge when they got to critical supply levels. They would go out in a blaze of glory. I have heard that some people have seen it, but I have yet to see it and I have conducted a lot of ground combat against the AI in mainland Asia. I frequently envelope and trap large pockets of enemy troops. I've always had to grind them down to 0 AV before I could get rid of them. I did once leave a pocket of isolated troops alone for 6 months or so while I fought other battles. When I brought in a Chinese death star to knock them out, they didn't last very long.
Most of the time Japanese hold out for months against huge forces. Right now I'm pouring troops into Tsieten trying to wipe out a pocket there (my troops hold the base). I have 9000 AV there vs 400 and the Allies take 3000 casualties an attack to the Japanese taking about 1000. This has been going on for close to a month game time and the enemy AV has barely dropped at all.
Bill
RE: PLEASE EXPLAIN
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 2:05 am
by Exinfernis
The switch to deliberate did the trick, fortifications started shaking
While on the subject, under what circumstances should one opt for shock attacks?
RE: PLEASE EXPLAIN
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 3:46 am
by dtravel
There is no rational explanation. And don't use shock attacks unless you are using a lot of armor LCUs and are planning on pursuing so your opponent can complain about the other gameness of the ground combat system.
RE: PLEASE EXPLAIN
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 7:53 am
by AmiralLaurent
ORIGINAL: dtravel
There is no rational explanation. And don't use shock attacks unless you are using a lot of armor LCUs and are planning on pursuing so your opponent can complain about the other gameness of the ground combat system.
The problem is not to use shock attacks, but to use the pursue option... I never use it myself, including with armor.
As for using shock attacks, in almost all cases I think it is a bad idea (when you can avoid it). Casualties of the attacker are far bigger and the AV gain is not so big... You will be more efficient one day, but then will be less efficient for the whole future actions.... It's better to launch a deliberate attack every 4-5 days than launch a schock attack and then take two weeks to restore your units.
The only case where a shock attack should be used is when you know enemy reinforcements are on the way and you need an immediate victory.
RE: PLEASE EXPLAIN
Posted: Sat Jul 14, 2007 8:44 am
by Charles2222
ORIGINAL: wdolson
ORIGINAL: wdolson
This is one of my pet peeves with ground combat. Except on atolls, units that are isolated become virtually invincible until their AV drops to 0, then they get killed off like flies. I've had large pockets of Japanese troops that took months to eliminate. Once isolated and out of supply, they shouldn't last more than a week.
I have seen this same pattern several times. It's a problem with the land combat engine.
Bill
ORIGINAL: Reg
How long was the Gona campaign???
The Japanese forces were cut off, out of supply and surounded but took considerably longer than a week to be eliminated. (I was going to say capitulate but they didn't).
The battle for Buna/Gona took about three months, but the Allied troops consisted of some highly experienced, but badly depleted Australian units and one poorly equipped and poorly prepared American division.
http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-battles/ww2/gona-buna-san.htm
I don't know when along that time line the Buna base would qualify as being captured. For most of those three months the Japanese still held onto what would be a base in game terms. I would expect that their situation detriorated pretty quickly once Buna base fell.
The Japanese also held onto Guadalcanal for almost six months, but the Tokyo Express was getting enough supply through to keep the troops alive (barely) and the American troops were both very inexperienced and poorly equipped for much of the campaign.
The game doesn't appear to interpret 0 supply the same way I would. If a unit has 0 supply, that means that it is not only out of food, but out of ammo too. Any kind of attack should result in huge casualties since all they have to defend themselves with are bayonettes.
It is completely unrealistic for 1000 AV of experienced troops to attack an isolated pocket of resistance low on supplies, get 10:1 or better odds and the enemy only take a handful of casualties and the attacking troops take 3 times more. Especially if this goes on for a while. The defending troops would start losing combat effectiveness as soon as their supplies began to get low, this would further decrease after several days of fighting. Without the facilities of a town for support, they would have to set up field hospitals in the open, which would turn a lot of non-mortal wounds into life threatening situations. Fatigue for the troops would also increase dramatically since nobody is able to sleep indoors and they are in constant combat, knowing that the end is approaching.
When supply hits zero, troops should start dropping in droves from starvation and they would have nothing to shoot back with, so enemy attacks would wipe them out in huge numbers.
In the real war, the Japanese would bonzai charge when they got to critical supply levels. They would go out in a blaze of glory. I have heard that some people have seen it, but I have yet to see it and I have conducted a lot of ground combat against the AI in mainland Asia. I frequently envelope and trap large pockets of enemy troops. I've always had to grind them down to 0 AV before I could get rid of them. I did once leave a pocket of isolated troops alone for 6 months or so while I fought other battles. When I brought in a Chinese death star to knock them out, they didn't last very long.
Most of the time Japanese hold out for months against huge forces. Right now I'm pouring troops into Tsieten trying to wipe out a pocket there (my troops hold the base). I have 9000 AV there vs 400 and the Allies take 3000 casualties an attack to the Japanese taking about 1000. This has been going on for close to a month game time and the enemy AV has barely dropped at all.
Bill
Irrespective of what the manual may say I start to wonder if the ground combat is given the opposite treatment that air combat is given. IOW, it looks like what a lot of people would prefer for air combat was applied to ground combat. By that I mean that not all of the combatants actually fight. How can it be otherwise unless they break off awfully quickly? Both styles of combat always show the total amount, but it looks like the air should have this partial treatment, whereas the ground should have more casualties. It does make things more realistic that when you order attacks their level of effort or ability to engage shouldn't always be the same.
For the sake of how the game is currently, despite what kind of terrain there may be, when you get light results like that, maybe it's best you pretend you're attacking a pivot that holds up most if not all of your army, such that you can't get to the rest of his forces, to engage more heavily. If that pivot keeps getting reinforced by previously inaccessible troops (IOW, the same force, but just men moved around from one place in the hex to another) then the holdout could occur for quite a long period. You might think of a non-destructible fortress, or at least one that the equipment you have cannot master, and each attack you kill the full amount of men it will hold, but it keeps getting re-manned. Since the amount of men is so small, whether attacking them is all that difficult or not, you wouldn't throw your entire force into the attack, because they would get into each other's way, so the attack itself is limited, though you think you're ordering the whole force, just what is advantageous for the situation actually partake.
Unfortunately, if the program were written that way, this would never allow you to capitalize on such a local victory that had to be won before you could go further, and the program would always re-man that one point and you would often, if not always, attack the same way from just basically giving an attack on a hex. It is bad if every cutoff battle goes like that, but the opposite would be just as bad. The logical thing to do, and perhaps having clear terrain do this isn't logical in the first place, but is to attach some percentage to when cutoff forces have what I just described, such that it is possible, but not constant.