Japanese comments for Sir Robin

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

*chuckle* If a supply sink ONLY meant that one had to use a Bde to capture even small targets and a division + for larger targets then no-one would have problems with it.

What I have a problem with is multi-army assaults ( I'm talking 8+ divisions ) faltering on the rock of a Regiment + thousands upon thousand of civilian labourers. It is completely ahistoric and alters the dynamics of the game farther from reality than is optimal.

YMMV etc but really some people object to supply sinks for reasons other than the fact that they prevent speedy Japanese bulldozer victories.

Re: that Hughes book. Is that available from Amazon etc or just from a specialty publisher? If so could you give me a URL for them. I'd be interested in it. ( I searched amazon but didn't find it ).

Exactly the problem with supply sinks I've encountered. I'm not sure how the game system works, but this is complicated and opaque, and doesn't reflect my limited understanding of those operations. (If you're chief systems engineer for a USMC command and control system, you study WWII landing operations...) The Hughes book was purchased through Amazon.co.uk.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

*chuckle* If a supply sink ONLY meant that one had to use a Bde to capture even small targets and a division + for larger targets then no-one would have problems with it.

Glad to hear it. It takes nothing whatever to add to an assault for a minor sink (one organic to a static unit planned for that location no less). It still takes nothing what ever to add for a medium sink (a small one not planned for the location) - but USUALLY takes 1 or 2 more days - 0 days does happen a minority of the time as well. The problem is solved - speaking after many assaults in the series 11, 12 and 13 - I have yet to spot one. As for the big ones - we will see. I am not worried - and not allocating more forces.

When a location falls on the first assault - the sink cannot be said to have delayed its fall - so I call that zero days. Even a location with a medium sink that is ORGANIC to a combat force - the largest of these is Hong Kong - I am not sure there is any delay whatever? In this case - the unit is planned to defend Hong Kong and does not get the awful leader (the first case is a generic commander assigned to all - after that it is the dreaded "staff officer" 0 - 0 guy) of a real sink. Yet only twice has Hong Kong failed to fall by Christmas Day - most of the time it falls before history - sometimes in less than a week. Is the presence of a sink delaying the fall? If so - the game system is very bad in terms of recreating historical results with historical forces. I assume it is - most of the time - contributing a day or two - because that is what happens at places with medium sinks that ARE specialized units (requiring a slot).

As for large locations - we have "cheated" in many cases - moving the sink off site - so the sink is not going to do anything but suck supplies out of the nearby resource center(s). While it also won't destroy industry in such a case - these locations already have major static defense elements which will perform that function for them. Indeed - even Singapore does not have a major sink - so whatever difficulty you have with it cannot be blamed on the sink that isn't there. In Malay the problem was that supplies didn't like to go to Singapore - and the giant sink at Kuala Lumpur was excessively hard to take. So it was broken into parts and put in all the locations in Malaya - and the communications coding was changed to make supplies less willing to leave Singapore itself. I am finding that - as the Allies - supplies are adequate everywhere - and I can influence where they collect to some degree by the location of HQ units. As for Singapore itself - I need to have more time to know: but I doubt it will last 100 days. [The historical campaign was within 24 hours of being suspended on logistic grounds when the surrender occurred. We never see this in a game: the Japanese never suffer logistic exhaustion in the fight for Malaya. If I could do more to make it so - I would.]

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

*chuckle* If a supply sink ONLY meant that one had to use a Bde to capture even small targets and a division + for larger targets then no-one would have problems with it.

What I have a problem with is multi-army assaults ( I'm talking 8+ divisions ) faltering on the rock of a Regiment + thousands upon thousand of civilian labourers. It is completely ahistoric and alters the dynamics of the game farther from reality than is optimal.

YMMV etc but really some people object to supply sinks for reasons other than the fact that they prevent speedy Japanese bulldozer victories.

Re: that Hughes book. Is that available from Amazon etc or just from a specialty publisher? If so could you give me a URL for them. I'd be interested in it. ( I searched amazon but didn't find it ).

Exactly the problem with supply sinks I've encountered. I'm not sure how the game system works, but this is complicated and opaque, and doesn't reflect my limited understanding of those operations. (If you're chief systems engineer for a USMC command and control system, you study WWII landing operations...) The Hughes book was purchased through Amazon.co.uk.

I have lots of problems with land combat. None of them related to sinks - they happen everywhere.
I cannot explain the odds that are achieved. I cannot explain why out of supply, demoralized and exhausted units can defeat superior forces day after day - right up until they surrender. But these issues occur without regard to the presence of supply sinks. IF sinks are still a problem - and I bet they are at places like Asanol - it is only the really big ones that need some careful consideration. But a major concentration of civil infrastructures IS like that - going in with inadequate force is not a good idea - and taking such a place with a tiny unit is certainly more wrong than making it hard to take is.

Herwins complaint about support is somewhat germane. In the first instance, I made sinks "support neutral" - but ran afoul of hard code concepts. Squad count is a big deal in combat - and only support squads are divided by 10 - so I ended up abandoning that idea. And - rationalizing - it IS true that military units get support from civil infrastructures. Manila's biggest trucking company put all its resources at the disposal of the Philippine Army on the day of the invasion. Construction and mining firms have machinery, explosives, vehicles and experts you could never conscript from an area without them - and you often don't have to conscript them. It may be that the problem is better than a solution which didn't have such support in cities. When we no longer need sinks to eat supplies - we surely want the engineer componants of them - and maybe we will want a smaller amount of support as a componant as well?

[Nemo121]

Amazon.co.uk---- Many thanks.
 
Well, I'm sure any "limited understanding" you might have is good enough for me to place a big bet on . In any case I think the issues that you and I ( and others ) have spotted aren't a matter of whether one needs x men or x +10% men to take a place when, historically, x men did the job but more a matter of the game requiring 10x the number of men for triple the historical time. I've seen RHS games in which a couple of regiments in Singapore have held off 6 t0 8 divisions until mid-42. Plainly this verges on the absurd.
 
Empires Ablaze began very simply as RHS with supply sinks ripped out due to my dissatisfaction with supply sinks. Since then it has morphed into a more "what if" mod but I think that the changes to the supply model from RHS to EA ( no supply sinks, removal of most auto-upgrades, recalibration of oil etc etc ) have been beneficial both historically and to game play.  Supply sinks are, I think, under the current model a deelopmental dead end.

[Nemo121]

As for the big ones - we will see. I am not worried - and not allocating more forces.

 
 
Hmm and even after allocating multiple new divisions I've seen Palembang resist a multi-Corps ( 4 Division to 5 division-equivalents ) assault.
 
Sure it should be damaged etc but oil workers shouldn't be holding off multiple divisions of Japanese troops. It just beggars belief., Now you can quote the tank factory in Stalingrad to me all you want but in reality workers rarely picked up tools and repelled a well-organised force of front-line combat troops who attacked in a cohesive fashion.
 
So, oil workers and rubber tree tappers picking up tools and resisting an equal or slightly lesser number of armed, organised front-line troops in modern combat --- No, it just isn't supported by the history.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

*chuckle* If a supply sink ONLY meant that one had to use a Bde to capture even small targets and a division + for larger targets then no-one would have problems with it.

Glad to hear it. It takes nothing whatever to add to an assault for a minor sink (one organic to a static unit planned for that location no less). It still takes nothing what ever to add for a medium sink (a small one not planned for the location) - but USUALLY takes 1 or 2 more days - 0 days does happen a minority of the time as well. The problem is solved - speaking after many assaults in the series 11, 12 and 13 - I have yet to spot one. As for the big ones - we will see. I am not worried - and not allocating more forces.

When a location falls on the first assault - the sink cannot be said to have delayed its fall - so I call that zero days. Even a location with a medium sink that is ORGANIC to a combat force - the largest of these is Hong Kong - I am not sure there is any delay whatever? In this case - the unit is planned to defend Hong Kong and does not get the awful leader (the first case is a generic commander assigned to all - after that it is the dreaded "staff officer" 0 - 0 guy) of a real sink. Yet only twice has Hong Kong failed to fall by Christmas Day - most of the time it falls before history - sometimes in less than a week. Is the presence of a sink delaying the fall? If so - the game system is very bad in terms of recreating historical results with historical forces. I assume it is - most of the time - contributing a day or two - because that is what happens at places with medium sinks that ARE specialized units (requiring a slot).

As for large locations - we have "cheated" in many cases - moving the sink off site - so the sink is not going to do anything but suck supplies out of the nearby resource center(s). While it also won't destroy industry in such a case - these locations already have major static defense elements which will perform that function for them. Indeed - even Singapore does not have a major sink - so whatever difficulty you have with it cannot be blamed on the sink that isn't there. In Malay the problem was that supplies didn't like to go to Singapore - and the giant sink at Kuala Lumpur was excessively hard to take. So it was broken into parts and put in all the locations in Malaya - and the communications coding was changed to make supplies less willing to leave Singapore itself. I am finding that - as the Allies - supplies are adequate everywhere - and I can influence where they collect to some degree by the location of HQ units. As for Singapore itself - I need to have more time to know: but I doubt it will last 100 days. [The historical campaign was within 24 hours of being suspended on logistic grounds when the surrender occurred. We never see this in a game: the Japanese never suffer logistic exhaustion in the fight for Malaya. If I could do more to make it so - I would.]

This looks like post-7.79 changes.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

*chuckle* If a supply sink ONLY meant that one had to use a Bde to capture even small targets and a division + for larger targets then no-one would have problems with it.

What I have a problem with is multi-army assaults ( I'm talking 8+ divisions ) faltering on the rock of a Regiment + thousands upon thousand of civilian labourers. It is completely ahistoric and alters the dynamics of the game farther from reality than is optimal.

YMMV etc but really some people object to supply sinks for reasons other than the fact that they prevent speedy Japanese bulldozer victories.

Re: that Hughes book. Is that available from Amazon etc or just from a specialty publisher? If so could you give me a URL for them. I'd be interested in it. ( I searched amazon but didn't find it ).

Exactly the problem with supply sinks I've encountered. I'm not sure how the game system works, but this is complicated and opaque, and doesn't reflect my limited understanding of those operations. (If you're chief systems engineer for a USMC command and control system, you study WWII landing operations...) The Hughes book was purchased through Amazon.co.uk.

I have lots of problems with land combat. None of them related to sinks - they happen everywhere.
I cannot explain the odds that are achieved. I cannot explain why out of supply, demoralized and exhausted units can defeat superior forces day after day - right up until they surrender. But these issues occur without regard to the presence of supply sinks. IF sinks are still a problem - and I bet they are at places like Asanol - it is only the really big ones that need some careful consideration. But a major concentration of civil infrastructures IS like that - going in with inadequate force is not a good idea - and taking such a place with a tiny unit is certainly more wrong than making it hard to take is.

Herwins complaint about support is somewhat germane. In the first instance, I made sinks "support neutral" - but ran afoul of hard code concepts. Squad count is a big deal in combat - and only support squads are divided by 10 - so I ended up abandoning that idea. And - rationalizing - it IS true that military units get support from civil infrastructures. Manila's biggest trucking company put all its resources at the disposal of the Philippine Army on the day of the invasion. Construction and mining firms have machinery, explosives, vehicles and experts you could never conscript from an area without them - and you often don't have to conscript them. It may be that the problem is better than a solution which didn't have such support in cities. When we no longer need sinks to eat supplies - we surely want the engineer componants of them - and maybe we will want a smaller amount of support as a componant as well?

We're playing an old version of RHS (7.79) and have reached 5 Jan 1943. The supply sink issue was the most noticeable one because of what you refer to as the hard code stuff. The odds issue you mention seems to reflect a designer's misunderstanding of ground combat operations. At a scale of 60 miles per hex and one day turns, you have to have partial hex control to produce historical results. Full hex control--as in WitP--produces a very stiff model and the game results do not approximate reality. We run into the same problems with compartmental models of neurones (my research speciality). To get realistic cell dynamics for a Purkinje cell (the most complex neurone in the mammalian central nervous system), you need about 5000 compartments. What we usually do to reduce the stiffness while getting the necessary accuracy is run the cell models in detail but set up the inter-cell interfaces to change much more slowly. In game turns, we would model the action inside the hex in detail, but limit the interactions between hexes.

[Bliztk]

In our game (me vs Herwin) the only way the japanese player has been able to advance thru Malaya, DEI and conquer Singapore is that after doing some research I discovered how to edit the value of the supply sinks to nil.

But I think that there is another problem with land combat in RHS, for example In our game (5 Jan 43) I`m still fighting in Madagascar trying to take Diego Suarez with 4 brigades + Commando Bn versus one one Bde and a CD which is not a Supply Sink. And we have seen several instances where attack ratios of 4-1 were repulsed.

Don´t know if it`s the composition of land forces (more organical support = more defense) or something that has changed in the firepower of land units, or a combination of both

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: herwin

Please describe the operations that should be used to capture Manila and Singapore. Unfortunately, I lack experience with the game system and so tend to use the task organisations I would have used in reality. Spending seven years as the chief systems engineer of a command and control system for corps-level amphibious operations can have that effect.

By the way, I just acquired a copy of Military Modelling for Decision Making, 3rd edition, Wayne P. Hughes, Jr., ed., 1997. Starting on page 50, there is an essay by Hughes "On Model Stricture, or Stifling Thought", where he criticises the way complicated opaque models inhibit imagination and creativity. "Too much detail for the sake of realism is confusing and self-defeating." He then gives a number of examples of systems that had to be abandoned because they "contain coding mysteries that produce counterintuitive, unexplained results."

My experiences with Stock and CHS scenarios with Manila and Singapore has just been to initiate your basic seige warfare. RHS and its supply sinks might last a bit longer than the CHS types as I've not gotten far enough into an RHS scenario to find out yet.

Send in enough troops that a counter-attack by the defenders can't dislodge them and just use bombardment attacks daily (so lots of artillery types help). Then use aircraft to reduce both the supply depots (port and/or airfield attacks) as well as using aircraft to reduce the numbers of troops (ground attack). This does 3 things...it disrupts the ground troops, disables squads, and uses supply at twice the rate just attacking the depots would as the LCUs attempt to repair their disablements.

Watch your combat reports and when it estimates you have about a 3:1 advantage in troops you are probably ready to start deliberate attacking.

Even against players that move everything to Singapore and Manila, I can usually go ahead and take Singapore by early to mid-March and Manila by late April. You just have to be patient and resist the urge to keep adding troops in to the attack...use those troops elsewhere, a player who has turtled in those 2 places are contained and not really a threat.

Just as a general rule. 4 divisions and 4 artillery rgts/btns are usually sufficient in my experience. The main thing is to get the bases cut off from resupply and wait out the supply sinks. They will reduce over time. One other thing you might need is a group of planes on ASW warfare to combat those players that try to resupply by submarine. The subs don't bring a lot of supply, but it can extend the length of time the bases will last.

This are just my personal experiences, other players may have different ways to go about it.

[Nemo121]

I've not gotten far enough into an RHS scenario to find out yet.

 
Hmm, I think this is the problem Shark7. I think you can assume that if Herwin or I or others are talking about severe issues with supply sinks it is because we have gotten that far and have found they don't just last " a bit longer " but a LOT longer and require a LOT more force than is historically reasonable.
 
Just to be clear... Are you suggesting that 4 divisions ( 1200 AV ) is sufficient to take either Singapore or Manilla against a player who has turtled up in there ( with over 1200 AV of defenders in most cases ) PLUS whatever bonuses they accrue through preparation points and defences ( x4 for urban hex in Manilla and a further bonus accruing for forts ).
 
Interesting, I'm not really familiar with many cases in-game where an inferior force was able to attack a dug-in defender who outnumbered them and was situated in an urban hex even if that defender was out of supply. Do you have a screen or CR of this as I'd love to see this.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

Amazon.co.uk---- Many thanks.

Well, I'm sure any "limited understanding" you might have is good enough for me to place a big bet on . In any case I think the issues that you and I ( and others ) have spotted aren't a matter of whether one needs x men or x +10% men to take a place when, historically, x men did the job but more a matter of the game requiring 10x the number of men for triple the historical time. I've seen RHS games in which a couple of regiments in Singapore have held off 6 t0 8 divisions until mid-42. Plainly this verges on the absurd.

Empires Ablaze began very simply as RHS with supply sinks ripped out due to my dissatisfaction with supply sinks. Since then it has morphed into a more "what if" mod but I think that the changes to the supply model from RHS to EA ( no supply sinks, removal of most auto-upgrades, recalibration of oil etc etc ) have been beneficial both historically and to game play.  Supply sinks are, I think, under the current model a deelopmental dead end.

An opinion based on lack of data is not very germane to the discussion. IF you either tested the current versions or simply listened to test results - you would not say what you do (assuming rationality and honesty). In part due to your feedback - and more due to Herwin's and several others - we worked and reworked the sinks - until they are not a problem at all in most places - being conservative - 95 per cent of sinks cause either no delay or 1 or 2 days - when you don't augment your forces at all. Now I have said it - and you have not listened - more than once - so I won't repeat it any more: I am showing no problem in any small or medium case at all - and places like Singapore don't have a big sink - so they also are not going to be a problem BECAUSE of the sink.

As for "unrealistic" - I have also pointed out the case of Manila - more than once. So this is the last time: it is history: Manila - defended by less than two regiments - became the most destroyed city in theater - and the second most destroyed city of all of WWII. Granted - Manila was occupied up to the Pasig River without resistence - and it was only the old walled (fortified) city that was defended - bitterly - virtually to the last man. [This in spite of orders from Gen Yamashita not to defend it. The Navy rear admiral didn't regard himself as under IJA command - and it was illegal to surrender in Japanese military law. Even Yamashita refused to surrender until given written orders by the Emperor for that reason.] Now I have no clue why you don't pay attention to this: it IS realistic to have a city be hard to take - and it is NOT realistic that a tiny unit can take it if anyone wants to resist.

I never liked the supply sink compromise - but instead of being a dead end - it turned out to be such an asset the concept will survive even the loss of its main reason for being born. AE apparently does not force us to produce too many supplies at resource centers: yet sinks will be used - and will make RHS better than non RHS - because of the functions they perform: they will destroy infrastructures when military engineers are not present, they will permit construction of defensive works, airfields and ports even before military engineers arrive to help (at major points where this is possible - or at islands - like Wake - where civilians were used in this way) - and they will permit static support of air transports used in military roles (instead of either no support or civilian hubs that are mobile like military air support is).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

As for the big ones - we will see. I am not worried - and not allocating more forces.

Hmm and even after allocating multiple new divisions I've seen Palembang resist a multi-Corps ( 4 Division to 5 division-equivalents ) assault.

Sure it should be damaged etc but oil workers shouldn't be holding off multiple divisions of Japanese troops. It just beggars belief., Now you can quote the tank factory in Stalingrad to me all you want but in reality workers rarely picked up tools and repelled a well-organised force of front-line combat troops who attacked in a cohesive fashion.

So, oil workers and rubber tree tappers picking up tools and resisting an equal or slightly lesser number of armed, organised front-line troops in modern combat --- No, it just isn't supported by the history.

Palembang is a special case. Here we don't have a major city like Manila - and we do have a large amount of supplies to consume - necessitating a less than small sink. It takes a bit of understanding of game mechanics to make it weak enough to capture: kill those supplies. You can do that with bombers - and you can do that by getting a unit in there on the ground. I recommend doing both. The latter is how programmers have AI do it - and it works even vs a sink. But you can set yourself up by bombing before you arrive. In the case of Palembang - or Asanol - or any large sink - I recommend you send in an "advance force" to shut down supply production - before the main assault. And I recommend you also damage the resource centers and destroy the supply stocks with air raids before and during the assault.

Taking a major point defended by BOTH military units and a sink is hard. If ONLY the sink is present - it isn't so hard.
The sink is make of fluff - it has almost no firepower - and it has horrible leadership and planning. But it DOES support combat units - and the combination is pretty powerful. I deliberately defend such points - as should be done - and usually is done unless for political reasons (e.g. Mac - or Yamashita's decisions to let Manila change hands uncontested).

Note that Palembang was not a particularly easy nut to crack IRL. The Japanese First Airborne Brigade was virtually wiped out. Not by "oil field workers" - but by soldiers. Your perception that it was undefended is at odds with events. The airborne were too lightly equipped and the defenders too numerous - so the unit was virtually wiped out - and it failed in its primary mission - to sieze at least one of the two refineries undamaged. In our compromise system, in effect we never damage both refineries - and a brigade assault will indeed be wiped out. It really isn't that bad.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: herwin

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: herwin




Exactly the problem with supply sinks I've encountered. I'm not sure how the game system works, but this is complicated and opaque, and doesn't reflect my limited understanding of those operations. (If you're chief systems engineer for a USMC command and control system, you study WWII landing operations...) The Hughes book was purchased through Amazon.co.uk.

I have lots of problems with land combat. None of them related to sinks - they happen everywhere.
I cannot explain the odds that are achieved. I cannot explain why out of supply, demoralized and exhausted units can defeat superior forces day after day - right up until they surrender. But these issues occur without regard to the presence of supply sinks. IF sinks are still a problem - and I bet they are at places like Asanol - it is only the really big ones that need some careful consideration. But a major concentration of civil infrastructures IS like that - going in with inadequate force is not a good idea - and taking such a place with a tiny unit is certainly more wrong than making it hard to take is.

Herwins complaint about support is somewhat germane. In the first instance, I made sinks "support neutral" - but ran afoul of hard code concepts. Squad count is a big deal in combat - and only support squads are divided by 10 - so I ended up abandoning that idea. And - rationalizing - it IS true that military units get support from civil infrastructures. Manila's biggest trucking company put all its resources at the disposal of the Philippine Army on the day of the invasion. Construction and mining firms have machinery, explosives, vehicles and experts you could never conscript from an area without them - and you often don't have to conscript them. It may be that the problem is better than a solution which didn't have such support in cities. When we no longer need sinks to eat supplies - we surely want the engineer componants of them - and maybe we will want a smaller amount of support as a componant as well?

We're playing an old version of RHS (7.79) and have reached 5 Jan 1943. The supply sink issue was the most noticeable one because of what you refer to as the hard code stuff. The odds issue you mention seems to reflect a designer's misunderstanding of ground combat operations. At a scale of 60 miles per hex and one day turns, you have to have partial hex control to produce historical results. Full hex control--as in WitP--produces a very stiff model and the game results do not approximate reality. We run into the same problems with compartmental models of neurones (my research speciality). To get realistic cell dynamics for a Purkinje cell (the most complex neurone in the mammalian central nervous system), you need about 5000 compartments. What we usually do to reduce the stiffness while getting the necessary accuracy is run the cell models in detail but set up the inter-cell interfaces to change much more slowly. In game turns, we would model the action inside the hex in detail, but limit the interactions between hexes.

It took a while - but because Matrix designers were right about same hex combat being best for naval and air combat - I worked on same hex combat for land - and made it work. There are two or three ways to get there - and I think Matrix is going to get there in future (but not in WITP itself). Same hex combat is - if you make it work - possibly better than adjacent hex land combat - on scales of this size. And even in WITP it isn't bad for island combats - which after all is a lot of what PTO is about.

I have taken a technicians approach - do what we can. We have tried to make units that work with the system better. And indeed the syatem has many elements that work fairly well. Since I play realistically - that is doing what I think commanders would do - and let the game decide events - I am not too unhappy: most combats are at least possible. The exceptions are what is unpleasant - but if one ignores the nominal "odds" - and is philosophical - it does work. I know I am winning even in spite of the odds - and that the unit is getting weaker and will surrender (if it cannot retreat).

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

In our game (me vs Herwin) the only way the japanese player has been able to advance thru Malaya, DEI and conquer Singapore is that after doing some research I discovered how to edit the value of the supply sinks to nil.

But I think that there is another problem with land combat in RHS, for example In our game (5 Jan 43) I`m still fighting in Madagascar trying to take Diego Suarez with 4 brigades + Commando Bn versus one one Bde and a CD which is not a Supply Sink. And we have seen several instances where attack ratios of 4-1 were repulsed.

Don´t know if it`s the composition of land forces (more organical support = more defense) or something that has changed in the firepower of land units, or a combination of both

I am skeptical that one can edit the supply sinks to nil: I doubt most people can even identify most sinks (which are INSIDE units - and how do you know what fraction of the support, engineers, etc is sink?) But IF you could do that - you THEN empower the defense with vastly too many supplies.

As for Madagascar - this also will be true in China and Russia and even Oahu - the problem is mountains. Combat in mountains is very very hard in WITP. In spite of which I think it is also right. Madagascar had only very second line colonial troops - and but a single battalion of caucasian troops - yet it was not possible to roll them over defending the long LOC through the mountains. Numbers were kind of irrelevant - and the point of the spear had a problem - or more properly a long series of problems.

[wild_Willie2]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

As for the big ones - we will see. I am not worried - and not allocating more forces.

Hmm and even after allocating multiple new divisions I've seen Palembang resist a multi-Corps ( 4 Division to 5 division-equivalents ) assault.

Sure it should be damaged etc but oil workers shouldn't be holding off multiple divisions of Japanese troops. It just beggars belief., Now you can quote the tank factory in Stalingrad to me all you want but in reality workers rarely picked up tools and repelled a well-organised force of front-line combat troops who attacked in a cohesive fashion.

So, oil workers and rubber tree tappers picking up tools and resisting an equal or slightly lesser number of armed, organised front-line troops in modern combat --- No, it just isn't supported by the history.

Palembang is a special case. Here we don't have a major city like Manila - and we do have a large amount of supplies to consume - necessitating a less than small sink. It takes a bit of understanding of game mechanics to make it weak enough to capture: kill those supplies. You can do that with bombers - and you can do that by getting a unit in there on the ground. I recommend doing both. The latter is how programmers have AI do it - and it works even vs a sink. But you can set yourself up by bombing before you arrive. In the case of Palembang - or Asanol - or any large sink - I recommend you send in an "advance force" to shut down supply production - before the main assault. And I recommend you also damage the resource centers and destroy the supply stocks with air raids before and during the assault.

Taking a major point defended by BOTH military units and a sink is hard. If ONLY the sink is present - it isn't so hard.
The sink is make of fluff - it has almost no firepower - and it has horrible leadership and planning. But it DOES support combat units - and the combination is pretty powerful. I deliberately defend such points - as should be done - and usually is done unless for political reasons (e.g. Mac - or Yamashita's decisions to let Manila change hands uncontested).

Note that Palembang was not a particularly easy nut to crack IRL. The Japanese First Airborne Brigade was virtually wiped out. Not by "oil field workers" - but by soldiers. Your perception that it was undefended is at odds with events. The airborne were too lightly equipped and the defenders too numerous - so the unit was virtually wiped out - and it failed in its primary mission - to sieze at least one of the two refineries undamaged. In our compromise system, in effect we never damage both refineries - and a brigade assault will indeed be wiped out. It really isn't that bad.

A brigade sized assault wiped out??

The Japanes dropped about half a battalion worth of troops on Palembang (about 300 men), and they where indeed forced to retreat when faced by a counterattack by a portion of the 2000 allied soldiers stationed there.

A full airborne brigade would have consisted of about 2500 men...

[Nemo121]

you would not say what you do (assuming rationality and honesty).

 
Well in light of your unwillingness to actually deal with the reality that someone CAN play your mod and feel there is a problem there without being either unhinged or a liar I'll take my leave from this thread.
 
Cid, you REALLY don't do yourself any favours when you come in and routinely refuse to acknowledge problems people report or state that their reports are either irrational or lies. To my certain knowledge a few people who have played RHS have refused to post to threads to report problems because they didn't care to be labelled in the manner you just have. This is a loss to RHS as it deprives it of much-needed feedback.

[el cid again]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

I've not gotten far enough into an RHS scenario to find out yet.

Hmm, I think this is the problem Shark7. I think you can assume that if Herwin or I or others are talking about severe issues with supply sinks it is because we have gotten that far and have found they don't just last " a bit longer " but a LOT longer and require a LOT more force than is historically reasonable.

Just to be clear... Are you suggesting that 4 divisions ( 1200 AV ) is sufficient to take either Singapore or Manilla against a player who has turtled up in there ( with over 1200 AV of defenders in most cases ) PLUS whatever bonuses they accrue through preparation points and defences ( x4 for urban hex in Manilla and a further bonus accruing for forts ).

Interesting, I'm not really familiar with many cases in-game where an inferior force was able to attack a dug-in defender who outnumbered them and was situated in an urban hex even if that defender was out of supply. Do you have a screen or CR of this as I'd love to see this.

At a location with a sink large compared to the assault force - you don't need odds. Even 0:1 will work. IF the enemy is foolish and does NOT put MILITARY units in the hex - the sink will take losses and collapse. A small example is Guam - where the composite unit is mostly sink - but also has a handful of Marines and a militia company. Or consider Christmas Island - with a tiny CD battery - but mainly a sink. Or Nauru Island - with a fairly large sink and no military elements. These places can be taken by small assault forces - one or two battalions - but not instantly. Lack of odds isn't a problem: the sink dies under assault. It dies faster if you hit it with bombers. The same thing holds for Kuala Lumpar - or Rangoon. If the static elements (which are not pure sinks - but have some military elements) are not supported by real combat brigades - the position is doomed - and will fall in less than a week. I assume that large sinks are the same - but I recommend shutting down supply production before you get there (by killing resource centers with strategic bombing) and then shutting down the rest by an advance party before true assault. I invest Manila for weeks before trying to attack it other than by bombardment. It does not matter if he has 5 units or 25 - ANY significant amount of combat force added to the sink will make it tough. IRL it was tough with ONE brigade defending. So I don't think that is very far from the mark. But just as that brigade was doomed - so is any amount of force. Lack of supplies combined with attrition from various forms of combat will do the job.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

In our game (me vs Herwin) the only way the japanese player has been able to advance thru Malaya, DEI and conquer Singapore is that after doing some research I discovered how to edit the value of the supply sinks to nil.

But I think that there is another problem with land combat in RHS, for example In our game (5 Jan 43) I`m still fighting in Madagascar trying to take Diego Suarez with 4 brigades + Commando Bn versus one one Bde and a CD which is not a Supply Sink. And we have seen several instances where attack ratios of 4-1 were repulsed.

Don´t know if it`s the composition of land forces (more organical support = more defense) or something that has changed in the firepower of land units, or a combination of both

I'm a rank novice, but I do know something about organisation of combined arms force for combat. The Diego Suarez situation is as Blitzk says. The real problem is the combat model seems to be a breakpoint model, and those have been known to be invalid since 1968 (R L Helmbold's work at RAND). In land and air combat, what matters is the relative percentage casualty rates. As long as they are about the same, the battle will go on and on, but if one side has marked firepower superiority, the other side will give way (and may surrender).

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: el cid again

ORIGINAL: Bliztk

In our game (me vs Herwin) the only way the japanese player has been able to advance thru Malaya, DEI and conquer Singapore is that after doing some research I discovered how to edit the value of the supply sinks to nil.

But I think that there is another problem with land combat in RHS, for example In our game (5 Jan 43) I`m still fighting in Madagascar trying to take Diego Suarez with 4 brigades + Commando Bn versus one one Bde and a CD which is not a Supply Sink. And we have seen several instances where attack ratios of 4-1 were repulsed.

Don´t know if it`s the composition of land forces (more organical support = more defense) or something that has changed in the firepower of land units, or a combination of both

I am skeptical that one can edit the supply sinks to nil: I doubt most people can even identify most sinks (which are INSIDE units - and how do you know what fraction of the support, engineers, etc is sink?) But IF you could do that - you THEN empower the defense with vastly too many supplies.

As for Madagascar - this also will be true in China and Russia and even Oahu - the problem is mountains. Combat in mountains is very very hard in WITP. In spite of which I think it is also right. Madagascar had only very second line colonial troops - and but a single battalion of caucasian troops - yet it was not possible to roll them over defending the long LOC through the mountains. Numbers were kind of irrelevant - and the point of the spear had a problem - or more properly a long series of problems.

I think you're thinking about very close and close terrain, which does empower the defence, but also requires large numbers of troops to hold ground. Mountains favour the attack--they limit lateral mobility, which is necessary for an effective defence. Each pass has to be garrisoned with enough forces to resist an attack by the entirety of the attacking force.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Nemo121

you would not say what you do (assuming rationality and honesty).

Well in light of your unwillingness to actually deal with the reality that someone CAN play your mod and feel there is a problem there without being either unhinged or a liar I'll take my leave from this thread.

Cid, you REALLY don't do yourself any favours when you come in and routinely refuse to acknowledge problems people report or state that their reports are either irrational or lies. To my certain knowledge a few people who have played RHS have refused to post to threads to report problems because they didn't care to be labelled in the manner you just have. This is a loss to RHS as it deprives it of much-needed feedback.

Oh, Cid does respond to these reports! Blitzk and I are playing an old version of RHS. BTW, we're into 1943, and his offensive operations are just getting started. I've avoided attacking American territory and we're playing the WPO rules that require him to blockade Japan by mid-1944 to win.