Surrender routines. Please explain.

[Ron Saueracker]

This is from the supply AAR Bill and I are doing. I'm just wondering if anyone knows what is supposed to be happening regarding surrender. Here is the picture from my last post describing the issue. Obviously there is something wrong with the routines...either they are screwed in isolated friendly base hexes or in cut off out of supply non base hexes. Singapore's defenders (high exp and morale; low fatigue and disruption, ample supply, remaining fortifications of 1) surrender on the first 3:1 achieved on them (May 5, 42) but a cut off support unit in hex 49, 40 withstands 64 consecutive days/attacks at at least 4:1 odds against while having no supply, low morale, low experience, high fatigue, high disruption before finally being destroyed on May 8th.

Leadership is obviously not an issue here but if it is this is way off base too.

[tsimmonds]

Fire-eaters hole up in the hills; girly-men defend in cities. When the polo field takes a few hits, and the tea-service at the club gets smashed, their nerve fails them.

[Jim D Burns]

You know, everyone's been complaining units in non-base hexes surrender too hard. Looking at this it might be that they are behaving normally and it's the units in bases that are surrendering too easily thus modifying players expectations of how units in non-base hexes should behave.

Maybe the surrender routines need an option for units in non-atoll hexes to retreat to the surrounding countryside instead of to an adjacent hex when they lose a base.

Jim

[Berkut]

Damn, tis game is just so borked in so many ways.

A classic example of their reach exceeding their grasp.

Frankly, I am losing faith that they care enough to actually get this game into the state it needs to be in. Hopefully I am wrong.

[tsimmonds]

Capturing bases has always seemed to me to be too easy. I think they used the one-off fall of Singapore as the model for all combat in bases, just as they used the one-off attack on PH as the model for the IJN co-ordination advantage.

[Sneer]

there is no good explanation so you will not get it [;)]

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: Sneer

there is no good explanation so you will not get it [;)]

I think they need to look seriously at this. While they are at it, maybe look at land combat in general. There must be a few relatively simple adjustments that can improve LC ithout major code changes (which are not going to be done anyway). Anyone have any ideas? I think LCUs should have no ZOC outside their hexes but should be able to support adjacent friendly units to compensate. Thing is the whole thing needs to be tied together in some sort of sensible format.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: Sneer

there is no good explanation so you will not get it [;)]

I think they need to look seriously at this. While they are at it, maybe look at land combat in general. There must be a few relatively simple adjustments that can improve LC ithout major code changes (which are not going to be done anyway). Anyone have any ideas? I think LCUs should have no ZOC outside their hexes but should be able to support adjacent friendly units to compensate. Thing is the whole thing needs to be tied together in some sort of sensible format.

I think the land combat system is a mess, and they never really ahd any actual "vision" of how it would work. They probably designed from the perspective of abse invasions, and tried to scale that up to general land combat, with pretty poor results.

[Mundy]

I've always wondered how hard it would have been to plug something like the TOAOW land combat system into the WITP engine. I don't know the general consensus on how well that game represented reality, but it seemed flexible enough to handle many different scales.

Oh well. Just thinking out loud.

[Nomad]

Working as designed? [:D] That is the standard response that I remember.

[BLUESBOB]

Big B and I were just discussing this last night. I had a whole bunch of US Far East Command units in Clark and they were pushed out toward Bataan. I commented that I'd rather have had them go to Manila, where there was supply, but Big B pointed out that there was no supply in Bataan...so the units would probably hold out much longer. We had a laugh...but it was the truth.

[BLUESBOB]

ORIGINAL: BLUESBOB

Big B and I were just discussing this last night. I had a whole bunch of US Far East Command units in Clark and they were pushed out toward Bataan. I commented that I'd rather have had them go to Manila, where there was supply, but Big B pointed out that there was no supply in Bataan...so the units would probably hold out much longer. We had a laugh...but it was the truth.

I'd like to point out something else bizarre about the game. I had these Clark units set on march towards Manila. Clark was becoming untenable and I wanted them to go where there was some supply. After a day or two, the units hadn't moved on the screen, but I could see that they had traveled 30 miles towards Manila.

At that point the Japanese did a shock attack. Rather than retreat towards Manila, which they were already half-way towards, they went back up the coast through the now occupied Clark hex and on towards Bataan. That maneuver cost them plenty. It seems ridiculous that a unit would retreat towards an enemy rather than towards a destination that is already set and they've made progress towards. It's another bug in my opinion.

[DeepSix]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

I think they need to look seriously at this. While they are at it, maybe look at land combat in general. There must be a few relatively simple adjustments that can improve LC ithout major code changes (which are not going to be done anyway)....

Absolutely agree. Land combat in non-base hexes is a total mucking fess. Surely there is some way it could be tweaked to make it more... well, at least logical, even if not entirely historical. At least let adjacent units support each other. It's absurd that two ground units in the same non-base hex should be treated the same as if one was in Karachi and the other in Portland, Oregon. It's also absurd that units completely surrounded are allowed to survive indefinitely. In WITP, if you're not in a base hex, you're in some kind of no-man's land that is unaffected by -- and has no recourse to -- the rules that govern every other aspect of the game. Don't know if that makes sense -- I'm trying to be articulate but every time I think about this subject I get fumed. Wish I knew diddley about code and I'd try to figure something out instead of just raving.[:@]

[moses]

The situation where, for example, a surrounded division is attacked at 10-1 odds turn after turn and takes negligible losses has always been a bug IMO. Currently I have a surrounded Japanese force (about 13,000 troops) in China which has been fighting for over two months now against 3 Chinese Corps. After two months I've got it down to about 11,500 troops.

Its in the woods and deliberate attacks kill less then the bombardment attacks which typically take out 10 to 30 troops each turn. My occasional deliberate attack get 10-1 to 30-1 odds but have no real effect.

According to the rules units which should be required to retreat but can't go into an elimination routine. (Don't have the rules in front of me so wording may not be exact). But for certain units this does not seem to happen.

If your odds exceed the defenders fortification level by two then the unit is supposed to retreat or go into an elimination routine. (surrender, Banzi charge, extra losses, something) instead surrounded units become like granite.
Bug.

On the other hand this bug is one of the few things which slow down ground combat. Maybe that why its never been addressed.

Note that this is different from the situation where a large unit is surrounded but too large and in too good of terrain to get good odds. This may or may not be realistic but it is probably not a bug.

[EUBanana]

I must confess I've not had this problem. If you outnumber the enemy enough you'll start seeing banzai charges.

I surrounded the Imperial Guard at Mandalay with five Indian divisions, it lasted less than a week before being totally destroyed.

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I must confess I've not had this problem. If you outnumber the enemy enough you'll start seeing banzai charges.

I surrounded the Imperial Guard at Mandalay with five Indian divisions, it lasted less than a week before being totally destroyed.

Take a look at my AAR vs Bill and you can see the 60+ consecutive attacks at hex 49, 40.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I must confess I've not had this problem. If you outnumber the enemy enough you'll start seeing banzai charges.

I surrounded the Imperial Guard at Mandalay with five Indian divisions, it lasted less than a week before being totally destroyed.

Take a look at my AAR vs Bill and you can see the 60+ consecutive attacks at hex 49, 40.

I did have a long siege that went on six months but when I managed to cut off their supply things went rapidly downhill for the Jap.

Do you actually see any banzai charging going on in the combat report?

[Ron Saueracker]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: Ron Saueracker

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

I must confess I've not had this problem. If you outnumber the enemy enough you'll start seeing banzai charges.

I surrounded the Imperial Guard at Mandalay with five Indian divisions, it lasted less than a week before being totally destroyed.

Take a look at my AAR vs Bill and you can see the 60+ consecutive attacks at hex 49, 40.

I did have a long siege that went on six months but when I managed to cut off their supply things went rapidly downhill for the Jap.

Do you actually see any banzai charging going on in the combat report?

Never seen this ever. But in the latest case, sync bug struck yet again. Dale Gribble would love this game.

[moses]

The problem occurs in non-base hexes. As far as I know things work as they are supposed to in base hexes.

At least I cannot recall a situation where a unit in a base could not be reduced.

[Berkut]

ORIGINAL: moses

The problem occurs in non-base hexes. As far as I know things work as they are supposed to in base hexes.

At least I cannot recall a situation where a unit in a base could not be reduced.

What about a unit in a base hex that is not their base?

I've had 75000 Chinese surrounded in Kaifeng for a few weeks now, thye cnanot possibly have any supply, and yet I am still beating my head against them with no success.