Urban Hex Question--Canoerebel Stay Out

[John 3rd]

Hello Forum.

As some of you may know, I have laid seige to Sydney Australia in Dan Roper and I's campaign. I have roughly 4,500 AS surrouding the city to his 3,000. I have been bombarding for about 2 weeks now and have been hitting his AF everyday. While doing this, I find myself reluctant to launch an assault.

Here are the negative issues:
1. FLAK is terrible over the city. I am bombing from 19,000 Ft and lose 3-4 bombers for every 50 that attack. There is no fighter opposition.

2. Urban Hex--Sydney's defenders will get that bonus and I doubt if I can start to bring down the Forts.

Positive elements:
1. My supply situation is good.

2. All units are at 100% strength.

3. Dan's supply situation must be pretty precarious.

4. I have total command of the air and sea.

I keep thinking to wait a couple of more weeks to try to starve his units some and then attack but do not know if that would help or not.

Does anyone have any tips and/or thoughts?

[castor troy]

4500 av against 3000 av in an urban hex looks to me like you will not get them to surrender within the next couple of months. How are the forts looking like? Use naval bombardments to kill his support troops - if the nukes work. Best thing is to just bypass such strongholds and put two divs and a bgd there and the defenders will never be able to move out while you have 3000+ assault points to move on - if there´s a target left you can move to.

[Jzanes]

Even with 0 forts 3000 AV times 4 for urban gives 12000 AV and you'll need 24000 AV to get 2 to 1 odds and capture the base.
 
If you can't mass that much AV then your best chance is to eliminate supply and massively disrupt, fatigue, and demoralize the defenders.  Massing your BBs and CAs and repeatedly bombarding the base would probably be the best way to do this.  I assume that there is no danger from big CD guns or minefields.  Only bombard once per run, return to base for ammo, and then bombard again.
 
Move every Artillery unit you have into the hex and bombard every turn.  I'd only bombard with your assault units if they are fully rested and have very few disabled troops.  This bombardment will raise your opponents experience to 60 but I suspect the australian army has pretty much already passed that experience level.
 
Make sure you have a corps and command HQ within range of sydney.  This doubles your AV.  Make sure you have enough support in the hex for your army.
 
I wouldn't bother with air raids unless bombing above the Flak does significant damage.  Try an airfield/port attack from your level bombers max. ceiling for a few turns and see if the flak is negligible and you do some significant damage (you are looking for supply hits and troop casualties).  If not, sit them until you are ready to really go for the base.
 
After 3 or 4 naval bombardments I would try a deliberate attack to see what the adjusted AVs are and repeat this attack every week or two until the garrison has been reduced (getting at least 1 to 1 odds) and the base is ready for a concerted assault.  Then I'd ground attack with every level bomber you have attacking from 6-10,000 feet regardless of flak.  At the same time deliberate attack.  If you get 0 to 1 odds at any point, stop the attacks and the airraids and return to naval bombardments for another week or two before trying again. 
 
I believe that bad weather can weaken your ground assaults.  I try to only attack during overcast or better weather.
 
If any of your units get shot up during this process, pull them back to a well-stocked base nearby and let them rebuild for a couple weeks.  No point in trashing your divisions during this long process.  You don't need to leave more than 1000 AV in the hex to maintain the siege as you also get the urban bonus if he tries to breakout.
 
I believe resource and heavy industry centers do not create supply when enemy units are in the hex but Sydney may be receiving "automatic" supply.  I doubt it'll be enough to support that large an army though.
 
The main thing is to patient.  Only attack when his units are trashed and yours are fully intact.  hope all this helps.

[John 3rd]

Thanks for the advice.
 
I have raised the altitude on my Bombers to 23,000 Ft and we'll see if that helps.  They are running daily Port/AF attacks.
 
There are 3 BC hitting Sydney about every 3-4 days.  I will have them make another run and time it with a Deliberate Attack to see just how far I have to go.
 
There is also an Army HQ present in the hex as well as an Area Army just one hex away in Port Kembla. 
 
We'll see what happens...
 

[tabpub]

Hi John,

In my other campaign in '44, my Anglo-Indian-Chinese army of similar size took 4 months to reduce an isolated Bangkok and force the IJA there into the suburbs.
That was with AF, port and ground attacks being run virtually around the clock from 5 different airfields (Vic Point, Tavoy, Moulmein, Rangoon and ....the one just NE of Bangkok, I forget it's name). It only worked when the supplies ran down finally.
07/13/44
Ground combat at Bangkok
Allied Deliberate attack
Attacking force 201097 troops, 1510 guns, 1051 vehicles, Assault Value = 5258
Defending force 62234 troops, 187 guns, 440 vehicles, Assault Value = 1463
Allied max assault: 5241 - adjusted assault: 4313
Japanese max defense: 1146 - adjusted defense: 299
Allied assault odds: 14 to 1 (fort level 7)
Allied forces CAPTURE Bangkok base !!!
Japanese ground losses:
3005 casualties reported
Guns lost 19
Vehicles lost 5
Allied ground losses:
7639 casualties reported
Guns lost 264
Vehicles lost 13

Prior attacks had bounced before the supplies ran down; this was with 100 prep and mucho support in place and 4 Corps HQ and an Army HQ in place.

[John 3rd]

Thanks for that as well. 
 
The good thing about this seige is that I am not in a hurry to end or even really win it.  There are no threats to my position.  I can take my own sweet time and starve them out.  This is why I will keep the high altitude bombing going and gradually wear down his troops.
 
Beyond that...
 

[niceguy2005]

I think you are looking at a very long seige as the others have said.  Does Sydney have any auto-supply?  Fundamentally I just don't think you have enough AV.

The flak is a good indicator of his supply level.  When the flak threat goes down you know you are making progress on his supplies.   Until then its suicide to attack.

My only suggestion would be to bring in a lot of artillery and keep pounding away.

[Mike Solli]

Cruisers are nice to use as a bombardment force because they carry a lot more main gun ammo than BBs.  They can hang around several days and bombard to the 1 day of bombardment for BBs.

[John 3rd]

Good thoughts from all you guys.  Perhaps a split the Bombardment Force I have been using into a BC TF and a CA TF?  The BCs can hit about 1/Week while the CAs could do 2-3 times that...
 
Hmmm...
 

[engineer]

One other tactic that I learned in a WPO campaign to capture Tokyo:  "Rolling Attack".  In a standard deliberate attack you hit the attack all button and maybe go through and put some of your weakest, most disrupted units on defense or bombardment, but at the end of day - even after nuclear shore bombardment, aerial bombardment, and bombardment - you send your warriors "over the top" at the Aussie's you'll have a hard time getting up to a 1:1 attack to start reducing his fortifications, and you end up with 2x to 4x the casualties that you inflict and eventually gut your combat power with artillery losses.  With a rolling attack you send in 10% to 15% of your force, they'll suffer fewer total losses than attacking with your whole army, still have the same 0:1 result, but the combat will incrementally disrupt all of the defenders.  You continue to attack, rolling the attack responsibility to fresh troops.  In the combat results section you should see the effective assault value of the defenders dropping from the cumulative effect of disruption and losses.  Once he's sufficiently off-balance, you send in the rest of your troops who've been resting up and reducing their disruption and fatigue for the kill.  You get to victory more quickly than attacking with everyone and pausing for a few days to recover disruption, and lose fewer troops that repeated massive frontal assaults create.     

UPDATE: If you have Newcastle and plenty of CAP, base your battleships at Newcastle and run your bombardment missions from there. You can do attacks every-other day with re-armed dreadnoughts even if your ships consume 1000 ops points to re-arm. Putting cruisers on-station, you can attack twice a day with bombardments in both the day and night phases of the game.

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: engineer

One other tactic that I learned in a WPO campaign to capture Tokyo: "Rolling Attack". In a standard deliberate attack you hit the attack all button and maybe go through and put some of your weakest, most disrupted units on defense or bombardment, but at the end of day - even after nuclear shore bombardment, aerial bombardment, and bombardment - you send your warriors "over the top" at the Aussie's you'll have a hard time getting up to a 1:1 attack to start reducing his fortifications, and you end up with 2x to 4x the casualties that you inflict and eventually gut your combat power with artillery losses. With a rolling attack you send in 10% to 15% of your force, they'll suffer fewer total losses than attacking with your whole army, still have the same 0:1 result, but the combat will incrementally disrupt all of the defenders. You continue to attack, rolling the attack responsibility to fresh troops. In the combat results section you should see the effective assault value of the defenders dropping from the cumulative effect of disruption and losses. Once he's sufficiently off-balance, you send in the rest of your troops who've been resting up and reducing their disruption and fatigue for the kill. You get to victory more quickly than attacking with everyone and pausing for a few days to recover disruption, and lose fewer troops that repeated massive frontal assaults create.

UPDATE: If you have Newcastle and plenty of CAP, base your battleships at Newcastle and run your bombardment missions from there. You can do attacks every-other day with re-armed dreadnoughts even if your ships consume 1000 ops points to re-arm. Putting cruisers on-station, you can attack twice a day with bombardments in both the day and night phases of the game.

I think engineer is on to something here. I did this against some cut of Japanese divisions in Burma. I would go a step further and say its a good idea to rotate some of those units back to a well supplied base - like Melbourne if its yours - to recover disabled squads.

I think however that it is useful to use massed BBs periodically to disrupt the enemy and attack in mass. You will have a better shot at bringing the forts down a level.

[John 3rd]

OK.  let me see if I have this right:
 
1.  Rotate attacking Divisions to lesson casualties, eat up his supplies, and raise his disruption.
2.  Continue the BC Bombardments based--now--out of Newcastle and do more CA Bombardments for--effectively--the same reason as point 1.
3.  Go with the High Alititude bombing
4.  When ready launch a full scale attack to check progress.
5.  Rotate units to restore their strength at Newcastle or Port Kembla.
 
Anything I miss?
 

[engineer]

The rotating attacks will give on-going results on the progress of disrupting the defenders.  niceguy2005 has a good point about coordinating the mass attacks with the naval bombardment since those increase the defender's disruption and will get you a better shot at reaching 1:1 so you can start eliminating his fortifications.  Keep an eye on morale, too.  That effects how many squads and guns fire in combat.  Poor morale reduces the effective assault on your units. 

[Jzanes]

The rotating attack method sounds effective but I think it's gamey.  IRL if you attacked with only a fraction of your force then only a fraction of the defenders would be engaged but in WITP ALL the defenders will engage and suffer the resulting disruption, fatigue, and supply use.  See the very questionable tactics of Trollelite in Gen. Hoepner's (now defunct) AAR to see the extreme version of this tactic.  I would discuss the use of this tactic with your opponent before trying it.

[John 3rd]

I think I will check with Dan after I begin and see what he says.  He has done this in a limited manner within his Burma Campaign so I don't think it is a big deal.  We'll see...
 

[engineer]

Rolling attacks and "gaminess":  Is there a continuum between bombardment and general attack?  A "real-world" description might be probing attacks and reconnaissance by fire. Troops advance, hit a wall, and the orders go out to try a different portion of the line a few miles down.  If the defenders don't seem to be resolute enough, then reinforce the attack with a more general assault.  Bombardments give raw assault values as feed-back but deliberate attacks are necessary to get the shifts.  Rolling attacks do exploit the general disruption rule, but defenders don't know the attack down the line might not spread to their sector in the moment so the stress on the defense is arguably real

[Alfred]

IRL, the rule of thumb is 3:1 for a successful deliberate attack.  In WITP, if you launch a rolling attack, as argued above, the entire defence line gets disrupted over 60 miles, not just adjacent elements not immediately in contact.  Now if in WITP you launch a rolling attack with 33.3% of your force (assume that the attacker has an overall advantage, preferably 3:1, before urban etc modifiers), you could argue that roughly equal numbers on both sides are affected by the WITP disruption.  To me that seems probably acceptable, but at only 10-15% of available attacking forces, such an attack would be borderline gamey and definitely too reminiscent of Trollelite.
 
Alfred

[John 3rd]

I am getting all my pieces into position and will begin this style of attack about March 1, 1943 within the game.  Since this has been a solid line of discussion, I will detail exactly what I am doing within my AAR 'Forlorn Hopes.'  Perhaps it will serve to help people in this situation...
 
Alfred I do tend to agree with you, thus I willd etail which units are attacking on which day and we'll see how (if) it works.
 

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: engineer

The rotating attacks will give on-going results on the progress of disrupting the defenders. niceguy2005 has a good point about coordinating the mass attacks with the naval bombardment since those increase the defender's disruption and will get you a better shot at reaching 1:1 so you can start eliminating his fortifications. Keep an eye on morale, too. That effects how many squads and guns fire in combat. Poor morale reduces the effective assault on your units.

I don't believe you have to get 1:1 odds to lower forts. I may be wrong about that, but my experience with the game so far says its a relationship between odds and the number of attacking Combat Engineers you have.

It might also be a good time to mention, in case some newer players are reading this thread that not all 0:1 results are equal. Even though the game only prints results as 0:1 for anything less than 1:1, it does distinguish between attacks that are nearly 1:1 and those that are at 1:2 or even 1:10. So I don't look at 1:1 as a really special magic number. An attack that is nearly 1:1 is almost as good.

[engineer]

I would certainly agree taking the weakest unit in your stack and sending them at a dug-in enemy force is gamey.  Alfred has proposed a one third threshold to avoid "gaminess" and highlighted the 3:1 rule of thumb for successful attacks.   The trouble is that getting the odds estimate right is not a given. 
 
For example, I've had 17 Japanese units ~50,000 men under siege at Mandalay for months.  Bombardment attacks show I've reduced their assault value from 1600 to 800.  With airstrikes, supply interruptions, etc, they're certainly in a bad way. But they're in defense and I've seen some big reductions in nominal assault value in some other assaults. Do I risk taking 4000 to 5000 casualties by sending my whole stack at them, or do I launch a probing attack to see exactly where they're effectiveness stands (assault value, disruption, morale, etc.)  I was astonished that my best Chinese division (assault value ~100 with full prep) managed a 1:1 deliberate attack, but that gave the green light for general attacks at 50:1 that killed several thousand Japanese until disruption on my attackers started dropping the odds to 20:1.  Now I'm continuing to attack with an Indian Brigade and two Chinese divisions while the rest of the army recoups disruption.  I should continue to get at least 3:1 odds and wear down the cut-off and surrounded Japs who are fighting to the last man. 
 
But the bottom line here is that combat effectiveness is greatly effected in WitP by a bunch of factors beyond the basic AV that only contact will verify.  I don't think it's "gamey" to make a probing attack to verify combat effectiveness.  
 
Full fledged rolling attacks in a real world scenario would look like sustained bombardments around the full defensive perimeter with random attacks at segments of the perimeter, punctuated with general attacks on the whole perimeter if the random attacks started to make progress in a given sector.