Broken ground combat

[moses]

But requiring shock attacks always implies that units are forced to attack the strongest point of defence. This makes sence for atols but not for larger bases.

It really is a difficult problem to simulate all possible combat on this scale with one model. Despite all the posting I think they've done OK given that this is primarily a navel/air simulation.

The only serious problem in my opinion is with the large land theaters. Probably the easiest quickest way to solve this is to have bad weather in China and Burma cause a probabability for attacks to be called off. This would slow things down in these theaters.

Everything else can be basically left alone. Its not perfect but I havn't seen any suggestions to improve that won't break the system in other ways.

[kaiser73]

well, shock attack for any landing would simulate the heavy casualties when landing. It doesn't happen in all cases, but in most yes, and not only on atols.

think at D-Day or any amphibious landing, it always took heavy damage (similar to the one you get from shock attack) if place was defended. there is always the dice roll to simulate when you don't land on the heavy guarded beach.

Regarding the land movement and fight, maybe just lower down both (decreasing the losses after any fight, increase time spent moving)?
this wouldn't mess with the system and would slow down fighting.

[medicff]

ORIGINAL: moses

Reply to Zeta 16

Spent 4 years with the 25th infantry in Oahu. Its got a whole lot of coastline and while much of it might not be ideal it would sure be hard to oppose a landing anywhere other then around the key bases where you would expect the defence to be concentrated. You do have to do some marching to get to the key bases which was my point. You could not land on the east or north shore, take 2 days to unload, and then launch a deliberate attack. It would take weeks to get to reach a decisive battle. Diamond head would not be a factor as it only defends against a seaward attack.

Anyway my point was just that in many cases the CD's could be avoided to an extent by landing at sites some distance from the main base. Then after a significant delay the main base could be attacked from the inland side.

In the current model you always face the full brunt of the CD's but then you can launch a deliberate attack and take the base within a day or two of landing if you have sufficient force.

I agree the movement with 60 mile hexes are quick. Especially considering terrain, fatigue, and delaying actions. The follow up attacks allow quick actions in multiland hexes and the island hexes attacks are too quick. A consideration, mentioned in another thread, is to further divide the hex into 10 mile increments to show small gains and as an additional in base hexes you could have the victor gain control of the base but not push the loser from the hex aka PacWar.

Some have made light of the subject of land combat being that this is mainly a battle of the sea and air. But I disagree in that with land combat the conquests could not occur and also have several major theatres of their own.

[moses]

Actually I think most landings were lightly or completely unopposed. In Guadelcanal alone the JP made dozens of landings just above or below the US position which were unopposed except by air and small naval forces. I'm not aware of any strongly opposed landings for pretty much the entire Soloman and New Guine campaigns although I'm sure someone will raise a few examples. That doesn't mean that there wasn't heavy fighting; just that a most of it occured in the days and weeks after the landing. In most cases where an option exists you would land at a weak point and then move to your objective. If there is no option you're just screwed and you bombard the heck out of the objective and then take your losses. But in many areas there's a whole lot of potential landing sites and they cannot all be heavily defended.

[Tophat]

Things will also change abit now that aircraft will be more likely to conduct bombing missions against land units.

[moses]

I'm not making light of the problem I'm just trying not to over-simplify it. Many people have an sence of how battles were fought in the Pacific and want the model to reflect their view of how things went. However their were dozens of different types of combat all of which could be modeled differently.

Essentially I believe that the ground combat problems are not a case of foolish design decisions but a case of a very difficult modeling situation. All things considered I think the model is sufficient except for Burma and China which could use some changes. Making large changes to other parts of the model will probably just fix it in one aspect but break it in another. Just my opinion.

[JohnK]

The problem is the "tipping point" problem.

Which I noticed in Uncommon Valor.

The only time you can have really long-lasting land combat is if the two sides are evenly matched.

If one side has even a slight manpower/firepower/supply advantage, that very quickly snowballs into an advantage that gets even larger daily and the weaker side is annihilated in very short order.

Making it impossible to have a weaker force linger for months like the Japanese at Guadalcanal, etc.

[siRkid]

I would agree that some tweaking of the combat model is called for but as you can see from this thread it will be very hard to come to an agreement.

One suggested change from another thread that I like was to make LCUs do a shock attack when crossing a river that has enemy units on the other side. Should be fairly simple to code and test.

Now what other simple changes could be made that will not throw the island combat out of whack?

[Nikademus]

I'm really leary of this suggestion. I think it might make river defenses a little too over the top. I'd much rather see a combat penalty for a "river hex" in the same vein as the urban combat rules.

[Tophat]

I take it any Land Combat changes will have to wait for 1.4 correct?

Any thought at all going into adding weather effects? This alone might take away much of the complaints about Jap Blitzkreig problems.

[pasternakski]

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

I'm really leary of this suggestion. I think it might make river defenses a little too over the top. I'd much rather see a combat penalty for a "river hex" in the same vein as the urban combat rules.

I'm not sure I'm fully in favor of the shock attack idea either, Nik, but you've got to remember that rivers are hexside features. If the river crossing is defended, something sure ought to happen between the attackers and defenders, and the defenders ought to have some sort of advantages in the resulting combat. Assaulting a defended river line (before vertical envelopment) has always been one of the most difficult and costly military maneuvers. I hope that something satisfactory can be worked out (in retrospect, it might have been better to route rivers through hexes instead of along hexsides, so that attackers sitting on the river line could be made to suffer attack penalties and be required to make some sort of attack - perhaps shock).

[Jim D Burns]

ORIGINAL: Xargun

I do not believe Japan made much effort in china once they took the bases they wanted. They mostly left the status quo alone and concentrated on other areas.

Japans goal from the outset of the war in China was total dominance over the country. It was only after they realized that they had no hope of controlling the entire vastness of China and their billions of people that they finally revised their goals in China.

China’s strength was its sheer numbers. If the Japanese overran an area, the military units would simply disappear into the populace, only to reappear and reconstitute as a fighting force in the rear after the Japanese had passed through. These units were well supplied by the bypassed populace in the rear areas, whereas the Japanese had to import most of their supplies through very hostile territory. Japan spent more effort guarding the rear area rail lines than they did on the front simply because they had too few troops to garrison what they held.

So you're saying that the entire area of PH was one big fort with everything built underground like Okinawa ? Hawaii was a vacation paradise and on its way to becoming a state - it was not an armed camp with bunkers every five feet.. Do you really think US soldiers would carpet bomb (with arty or air power) downtown Oahu just to kill some japanese ? What about the civilians ? If japan really landed in Hawaii and captured the bulk of the civilians and put all of there barracks and supply depots near the civilians, do you think we would have attacked them ? I doubt it very much... or if we did it would be very carefully with special ops more than massed infantry and tank assaults.

No, I’m saying the fighting would have lasted far longer than it did simply due to the size of the units engaged and the abundance of supply on hand. No matter how outnumbered a force is, it still takes TIME to reduce large combat formations.

The Germans spent months reducing the massive pockets of overrun soviets in 1941 and 1942, even though these soviet units were completely cutoff, isolated and out of most basic supplies. 2 plus divisions in friendly territory rich in foodstuffs could last for months on end as long as they had bullets to fire. The units in Bataan were on that peninsula from January to April, and only surrendered when they were down to two days rations left.

By raising it to 8:1 you would never take a base without massively superior firepower.. What about undefended bases ? Some small units can barely get 2:1 odds against an empty base, how would they get 8:1 ? The chinese shouldn't start at full strength - I do not think the EVER achieve full stength throughout the war - let alone at the beginning. As for their low experience levels, they were that crappy. They had little to no real training, only whatever experience they have picked up fighting the japanese - for those that survived that is.

I agree the 8-1 thing probably won’t fix it, but it will help. The original PacWar required 10-1 for base capture and that game also received quite a bit of criticism over the ease of base capture. I think the problem lies in the surrender routines. Units should not even roll for surrender until they're reduced to less than 5% of required supplies. That way units won’t surrender simply because they lose their base. Combine that with a more difficult base capture and I think it will help things tremendously.


You’re buying into stereotypical nonsense. The Chinese were a very mixed bag for the most part, and some units were actually better than their Japanese counterparts. As a case in point read this excerpt from Burma, 1942 (http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/brochures/bu ... urma42.htm) regarding the fighting in Burma:

“A Japanese offensive begun in early March rapidly achieved success. However, the Chinese 200th Division held at Toungoo for twelve days against repeated Japanese assaults. Their stand represented the longest defensive action of any Allied force in the campaign. Even so, another major Allied withdrawal was inevitable.

Meanwhile, the Toungoo battle revealed the problems involved in Stilwell's commanding the Chinese forces in Burma. When he ordered the Chinese 22d Division south to relieve the 200th, for example, he received little response except excuses from the division commander. Despite Kai-shek's assurances to the contrary, Stilwell had not been given the "Kwan-fang" (seal or chop) as commander in chief in Burma; he had only been named chief of staff. The Chinese commanders, therefore, refused to carry out orders from Stilwell until they had been cleared with the generalissimo, who persisted in his habit of constantly changing his mind. The subsequent withdrawal of the 200th Division exposed the Burma Corps at Prome to Japanese attack. As a result, by the end of March the Allies were retreating north with the British and Chinese blaming each other for the repeated reverses. “

As you can see a single Chinese division held off the entire Japanese advance for two full weeks on its own, try doing that in WitP. It was only command confusion that caused the 200th to withdraw from the line without first being replaced that allowed the Japanese to break the allied lines.

Yes some Chinese troops were worthless, but most had been fighting Japan for over 4 or 5 years by Dec of 1941 (their war started in 1937). They were technically outclassed, but they were far from worthless. I don’t think average experience ratings of 50-60 are too much to ask. As for equipment if Japan is 100% TO&E, then the Chinese should be as well. You’re obviously being a Japanese fan boy on this point; no units on either side could have been close to 100% after 5 years of fighting.

It never takes as long to destroy something as it does to build it.. You go build a nice house.. Give a demolitions guy 1 kg of C-4 and 5 mins and he'll wipe it off the face of the earth...

I said ALMOST as long. In all my years reading history, I never heard of entrenched units being forced to give up their foxholes and trenches simply because some engineers opposed them. I have no problem with engineers getting an assault bonus against fortified troops, but filling in their foxholes in just a few days while still occupied seems too much to me. That last 1 or 2 points of fortification should never disappear as far as I’m concerned as long as the defenders still occupy their entrenchments.

In my games I currently have roughly 4 divs worth of troops (including engineers) attacking bases and days go by without me affecting the fort level at all.. I've even Shock attacked in attempt to lower the fort level and had it failed.

Wow your defender occupies a fortified position and you’re upset you can’t destroy his forts while he is occupying them? I perceive reducing fortifications to mean you’re knocking out pillboxes, clearing minefields, etc. this all takes time and isn’t always successful. If it took my three units 4 weeks to lay that minefield I’m amazed you’re upset that your guys can’t clear it in just a few days.

Someone else mentioned that CD guns do a good job of hitting ships and killing men on those ships but suck at killing men on the beaches... I may not be a combat engineer, but those guns were designed to attack ships, not men.. Most of the static guns would not be able to depress low enough to target the beaches they protected - that was the job of the army - not the CD guns...

Actually you’re miss-quoting him. He was upset that CD guns do not kill troops embarked on them. Rather they finish unloading before the CD guns fire. He simply wants units aboard ships that get hit to take some casualties before they unload. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

Jim

[Nikademus]

your right, but another problem is that we are dealing with large 60mile hexes. As such it makes it really hard for the Japanese to employ the methodology they used so effectively in Burma....flanking attacks. Hard to do in constrained, close-in terrain.

Thats why i'm really leary of such a harsh rule. (The forced shock attack) I was thinking that maybe hexes that border a river could be given some kind of combat modifyer. Course the major flaw in that thinking is that it would not be directional.

[Mr.Frag]

He was upset that CD guns do not kill troops embarked on them. Rather they finish unloading before the CD guns fire. He simply wants units aboard ships that get hit to take some casualties before they unload. I don’t think that’s unreasonable.

That is something that we have been discussing ... "Damage done to ships causes damage/loss of ship's cargo."

Not in 1.30 but expect it in 1.40 as it is certainly high up on my wish list.

[ltfightr]

Another suggestion for china might be increase the garrison requirements this would slow the operations down in china quite a bit

I agree that 8-1 odds are too high to achive as the standard. Perhaps another concern is how fast victorious units are able to be redeployed and reenter the fight. Maybe they need a morale level like aircraft. I also think ships could use a morale level as well. The poor electronic sailors and marines do not have any R and R.

[Nikademus]

in the AAR being discussed, I believe Zeta admitted that he wasn't paying any attention to China until well after Dude's operations started. When the Allied player takes China seriously, its not nearly the cakewalk its often described as. I believe Raverdale came up with a very deadly China strategy IIRC.

[dtravel]

My impression so far is that Fortifications get reduced very quickly. I seem to remember reading in the Dude vs. Zeta AAR that one Allied base under attack had its level 9 forts reduced to zero in 9 days. That is ridiculous. My suggestion for the first ground combat tweak is try slowing that down.

[WiTP_Dude]

ORIGINAL: dtravel

My impression so far is that Fortifications get reduced very quickly. I seem to remember reading in the Dude vs. Zeta AAR that one Allied base under attack had its level 9 forts reduced to zero in 9 days. That is ridiculous. My suggestion for the first ground combat tweak is try slowing that down.

Impossible. With 2-day turns, units will probably not fight on the second day after going up against level 9 forts. If they continue to fight, the battle will be won before reaching level 0 fort because the odds are so stacked against the defender.

[Xargun]

ORIGINAL: pasternakski

I'm not sure I'm fully in favor of the shock attack idea either, Nik, but you've got to remember that rivers are hexside features. If the river crossing is defended, something sure ought to happen between the attackers and defenders, and the defenders ought to have some sort of advantages in the resulting combat. Assaulting a defended river line (before vertical envelopment) has always been one of the most difficult and costly military maneuvers. I hope that something satisfactory can be worked out (in retrospect, it might have been better to route rivers through hexes instead of along hexsides, so that attackers sitting on the river line could be made to suffer attack penalties and be required to make some sort of attack - perhaps shock).

Instead of forcing a shock attack, why not have the attacked incur a disruption penalty for having to cross the river. To me this would seem a nice way to disrupt the attackers lines of sight / communication, as well as forcing a limited amount of men on the far side engaging a larger amount of defenders - the first couple waves of men will be hard pressed...

Perhaps engineering regiments would have less / or no penalty due to the chance of them having correct equipment to cross rivers - bridges, boats, etc..

Xargun

[Tanaka]

why not compromise between the 2-1 odds people and the 8-1 odds people and make it 4-1 odds. not too much not too little??? [;)]