Combat modification strat mode

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Combat modification strat mode

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Combat modification strat mode

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Combat modification strat mode - 9/18/2013 4:24:09 PM

PT boat skipper
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 386
Joined: 7/17/2006
Status: offline

Can anyone pls tell me the combat modification due to strat mode (railway transportation) -10%, -20%?

/J

Post #: 1

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/18/2013 5:03:49 PM

Bullwinkle58
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

I don't know that one has ever been quoted by the devs. I just did a quick manual search and didn't find one.

I think it's safe to assume it's a lot higher than 10-20%. The mode models weapons and equipment being crated and palletized, not accessible to troops. They are most often riding in rail cars or on xAP ships in berthing spaces, sleeping and playing cards.

I don't know a number, but a unit in Combat attacking a unit in Strat will devastate it. Don't use Strat mode unless the route is safe and you have time to convert mode at the end of the line.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to PT boat skipper)

Post #: 2

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/18/2013 8:16:40 PM

PT boat skipper
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 386
Joined: 7/17/2006
Status: offline

Thanks Moose,

That was my thought too until a few days ago. That is: never deploy a strat mode unit near the enemy. However, my opponent did just that (in jungle terrain and fort lvl 3) and my attacking units were almost completely destroyed/devastated.

In order words, the modifier must be negated by the forts and the terrain.

See example below (I had a clear 2-1 AV-advantage before enemy units arrived on strat-mode the same day as the attack. There was no air attacks from either side, the japanese however bombarded with three BB, three CA, 1CL and 10+ DD (2 TFs). The Japanese disruption levels were about 5-8):

Ground combat at Jaffna (31,45)

Japanese Shock attack
Attacking force 28725 troops, 393 guns, 90 vehicles, Assault Value = 626
Defending force 42246 troops, 649 guns, 1026 vehicles, Assault Value = 1494

Japanese adjusted assault: 89
Allied adjusted defense: 1621

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 18 (fort level 3)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), op mode(-), Note: strat-mode, preparation(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
4394 casualties reported
Squads: 84 destroyed, 464 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 81 disabled
Engineers: 14 destroyed, 36 disabled
Guns lost 52 (2 destroyed, 50 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
60 casualties reported
Squads: 1 destroyed, 9 disabled Note: so much more extra vulnerability in strat mode?
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 5 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled

Assaulting units:
25th Division
24th Division
2nd Recon Regiment
4th Ind.Mixed Regiment
Yokosuka 3rd SNLF
54th JNAF AF Unit
20th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
2nd Army
2nd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
7th Base Force
7th Air Defense AA Regiment
55th JNAF AF Unit

Defending units:
2/10th Armoured Regiment
6th Australian Division - strat mode
2nd British Division - strat mode
3/4 Ghurka Rifles Battalion
100th Indian Brigade - strat mode
99th Indian Brigade - strat mode
2/8th Armoured Regiment
98th Indian Brigade
I Australian Corps - strat mode
40th Field Artillery Regiment - strat mode
109th RN Base Force

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 3

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/18/2013 8:17:11 PM

Numdydar
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 3211
Joined: 2/13/2004
Status: offline

For Japan being attacked by enemy LCUs in Strat modes is never an issue lol.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 4

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/18/2013 8:44:18 PM

Grollub
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6674
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Lulea, Sweden
Status: offline

I just compared the disruption/disablement of the units from the previous turn to this one. It's circumstantial, but it looks like the few disablements that were caused mostly happened to the INF LCUs already present, that is 3/4 Gurkhas and the 99th Ind Bde.

_____________________________

“Not mastering metaphores is like cooking pasta when the train is delayed"

(in reply to Numdydar)

Post #: 5

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/18/2013 9:36:39 PM

Grollub
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6674
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Lulea, Sweden
Status: offline

I don't know if I remember this correctly, but in the epic Rader vs. Greyjoy AAR, didn't Rader rail in massive reinforcements when Greyjoy landed on Honshu?

_____________________________

“Not mastering metaphores is like cooking pasta when the train is delayed"

(in reply to Grollub)

Post #: 6

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/18/2013 9:55:25 PM

LoBaron
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Hm, looking at the combat report, with that force relation and forts+jungle the Allied troops probably could have been sleeping soundly after a drunken night out and still maul the Japanese attack.

Shock attack only made things worse as it exposed the attackers to two defender fire phases.

Strat mode can be devastating, but only when the odds are equally distributed.

_____________________________

(in reply to PT boat skipper)

Post #: 7

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/18/2013 10:46:56 PM

PT boat skipper
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 386
Joined: 7/17/2006
Status: offline

So what you are saying LoBaron, is that with Forts and good terrain (Jungle) and superiority in numbers Strat Mode will do just fine? In that case this is the perfect invasion defense! Why have lots of troops in combat mode guarding different beaches when you can have the tropps hidden inland, in strat-mode, rushing instantly to an invasion beach and thus avoiding any shore bombardments and air attacks and then are effective enough to defeat an invasion. I would love to use that tactic but is it realistic at all?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Hm, looking at the combat report, with that force relation and forts+jungle the Allied troops probably could have been sleeping soundly after a drunken night out and still maul the Japanese attack.

Shock attack only made things worse as it exposed the attackers to two defender fire phases.

Strat mode can be devastating, but only when the odds are equally distributed.

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 8

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/18/2013 11:07:15 PM

DaveConn
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 254
Joined: 5/3/2001
From: Bainbridge Island, Washington
Status: offline

I have no idea how the code works on this, but there was an infantry brigade and two armoured regiments (plus a base force) already there in combat mode, in good terrain with forts. It is conceivable that the units in strategic mode were only minimally involved, and that the combat mode units bore the brunt of the defense.

(in reply to PT boat skipper)

Post #: 9

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/18/2013 11:56:34 PM

Bullwinkle58
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaveConn

I have no idea how the code works on this, but there was an infantry brigade and two armoured regiments (plus a base force) already there in combat mode, in good terrain with forts. It is conceivable that the units in strategic mode were only minimally involved, and that the combat mode units bore the brunt of the defense.

That's what I figured. Strat mode has always worked inbound to a combat hex if there are other friendlies there in non-strat mode. I always picture the residents giving cover to the unload and de-palletizing of the newcomers. I doubt the strat mode units contributed much or any AV to the day. But I've never tested moving, say, ten strat mode units into a hex with one combat mode defender and then having the hex attacked by a very large attacking force, say ten IDs.

What happens down in the weeds is a mystery to me. I have always figured though that railing in combat troops to a firefight is a last-ditch effort, not something to be planned for.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to DaveConn)

Post #: 10

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/19/2013 2:56:08 AM

bigred
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 3599
Joined: 12/27/2007
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PT boat skipper

Can anyone pls tell me the combat modification due to strat mode (railway transportation) -10%, -20%?

/J

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2495125&mpage=39&key=
post 1142
-75%

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by bigred -- 9/19/2013 3:05:19 AM >

_____________________________

---bigred---

IJ Production mistakes--
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2597400

(in reply to PT boat skipper)

Post #: 11

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/19/2013 3:57:10 AM

Alfred
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

Gentlemen,

You have been sidetracked into looking at the wrong culprit. Far too easy to blame the strat mode feature for giving a boost to the defence. That POV is wrong.

Two elements stand out from the CR provided in post #3.

1. The unadjusted Japanese AV 626 collapsed to an adjusted AV of 89. Considering that a shock attack was involved, that constitutes a devastating outcome. And no, the Japanese modifiers need not be fully disclosed in the CR even though they still play a part in the outcome.

2. The Allied AV only had a small increase from unadjusted 1494 to adjusted 1621. The small increase is explained by the bulk of the Allied units being in strat mode. If they had all been in combat mode (excluding any damage inflicted during the firing phase) the adjusted AV would have been more in the vicinity of:

(1494)(2 = jungle terrain)(1.5 = level 3 forts) = 4482 adjusted AV

Unlike the OP's claim that the perfect defence to an invasion is to rush to the beaches in strat mode, the fact is that there is a significant penalty associated in relying upon such a defensive tactic. In this case a drop from a potential adjusted AV of 4482 down to only 1621 (which is only 36% of the potential adjusted AV).

Bottom line. The failure of the attack had much more to do with the Japanese profile than that of the Allied. You should look much more closely at why the Japanese AV collapsed.

Alfred

(in reply to bigred)

Post #: 12

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/19/2013 8:30:49 AM

LoBaron
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Alfred as usual you spotted something not noted by the rest of us.

But in this case I am not sure AV really is the crucial aspect to look here. The Japanese adjusted AV is so low because the troops shock attacked into the face of (rough estimate) at least 5:1 firepower. Thats enough to maul the units. There is nothing wrong with the Japanese attack.

Except there were not enough to get the job done in the face of the additional Allied firepower, strat move or not.

_____________________________

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 13

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/19/2013 8:42:03 AM

LoBaron
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

To clearify: adjusted AV is the result of the attack. It is the value after everything has been substracted (destroyed/disabled squads, negative attack modiers) and added (positive attack modifiers). It shows the situation after the fight is over.

_____________________________

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 14

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/19/2013 8:58:58 AM

Grollub
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6674
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Lulea, Sweden
Status: offline

PTBS, just for the sake of testing and maybe learning something, I've just sent you that turn again but cancelled the strat move into Jaffna. Could you run that turn and post the resulting combat report? Ok, the result may differ due to changed result of the naval bombardment, my AF might actually decide to fly for once

but it would be "nice to know".

_____________________________

“Not mastering metaphores is like cooking pasta when the train is delayed"

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 15

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/19/2013 9:00:12 AM

LoBaron
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: PT boat skipper

So what you are saying LoBaron, is that with Forts and good terrain (Jungle) and superiority in numbers Strat Mode will do just fine? In that case this is the perfect invasion defense! Why have lots of troops in combat mode guarding different beaches when you can have the tropps hidden inland, in strat-mode, rushing instantly to an invasion beach and thus avoiding any shore bombardments and air attacks and then are effective enough to defeat an invasion. I would love to use that tactic but is it realistic at all?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Hm, looking at the combat report, with that force relation and forts+jungle the Allied troops probably could have been sleeping soundly after a drunken night out and still maul the Japanese attack.

Shock attack only made things worse as it exposed the attackers to two defender fire phases.

Strat mode can be devastating, but only when the odds are equally distributed.

Well, this depends on how much is brought to the party. Had the Japanese attack been significantly stronger than the combination of Allied troops in combat mode and strat mode, the result might have been devastating to the Allies. But that force relation is required for any attack anyway.

That said, keeping reserves in strat mode for fast reaction is an option, but it costs. It makes the source base more vulnerable, it is a huge penalty when the attacker has enough firepower, and obviously those units are not dug in.

_____________________________

(in reply to PT boat skipper)

Post #: 16

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/19/2013 9:03:04 AM

LoBaron
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Good idea Grollub! Will be interesting to see the results.

_____________________________

(in reply to Grollub)

Post #: 17

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/19/2013 9:28:55 AM

PT boat skipper
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 386
Joined: 7/17/2006
Status: offline

Will run the test late tonight as I am in charge of a Command & Color: Napolenonics session in the early evening.

Ok, so the modification is -75%, however with at least fort 3 (+50%) and jungle (+50%) that means the allied units are fully operational right? so I am basically shock attacking into a 1-2 or 1-3 situation? Or I am getting something wrong here?

Here is what I mean by the perfect invasion defense:

Day 1: Allied land six divisions in an hex (fort 3+ (+50%) and at least hilly terrain (+50%) defended by about one japanese division (+).
Day 2a: Allies bombard the hex with 10+ battlehips against the defending division
Day 2B: Allies commits 500 bombers against the defending division
Day2C: Japanese reinforcements (12+ Divisions) are railroaded into the hex thus escaping all bombardments and all air attacks
Day2D: Allies shock attack faces 12 combat-ready japanese divisions due to fort- and terrain-modifications counter the strat-mode modifications.

Correct or not?

/J

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 18

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/19/2013 11:17:51 AM

Grollub
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6674
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Lulea, Sweden
Status: offline

Your example is quite at the end of the spectrum ... but ok.

To answer your end question - no you are not correct. Read Alfreds post #12 again.

I find it perfectly logical to build up defense (=forts) at a base and planning for using these as protection for any possible arriving quick reaction forces by rail. Ok, as an army officer I have absolutely no problems with marching, but if I could go by rail I would have no objections. What else are you supposed to use the rail net for?

As for your quip about these railing units avoiding naval bombardment. Yes, that's also quite logical. I know from long experience that you like to use NB wherever you can, but it's not a law of nature that every unit in a hex (or arriving to it) has to be subjected to it. The NB arrived during the night, bombarded and left. Quite logical. During the day, the reinforcements arrive after the NB has left. What's the problem?

As for your concerns that it also avoids any air attacks on the hex/base you are more correct and the sequence of play makes the railing units arrive after the air phases. This might be a little off, but I remind you that this game is not, by far, a perfect representation of how things works in real life. It's a simulation and and a very good one at that if I might say. You can't, however, expect the game to cover for every contingency that might happen though.

Your loss at Jaffna could have been a little softened though if you had bothered to recon and interdict the other bases on the island. Then you would have spotted what you were up against. As it is now you landed completely in the dark, which is why I'm a little unmoved by your frustration over your losses and how little losses I took.

If you had reconned Ceylon, you would've realised that either 1/ you don't have enough ground troops to take it or 2/ you have to add more troops and land at multiple places thereby making sure that you get at least one base to continue on from no matter if I use the railroad to reinforce some of the invasion sites.

_____________________________

“Not mastering metaphores is like cooking pasta when the train is delayed"

(in reply to PT boat skipper)

Post #: 19

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/19/2013 11:21:27 AM

Alfred
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

Alfred as usual you spotted something not noted by the rest of us.

But in this case I am not sure AV really is the crucial aspect to look here. The Japanese adjusted AV is so low because the troops shock attacked into the face of (rough estimate) at least 5:1 firepower. Thats enough to maul the units. There is nothing wrong with the Japanese attack.

Except there were not enough to get the job done in the face of the additional Allied firepower, strat move or not.

Exactly my point.

The "discussion" on AV is irrelevant. What is relevant is the Japanese profile. IOW what Japan brought to the gunfight, what condition the force was in when the decision to shock attack was made, what measures had been taken beforehand to "shape" the subsequent land battlefield performance.

All this just reinforces the oft mentioned and equally oft dismissed point that it is firepower that matters not AV. AV is only used in determining who retains control of the battlefield after the combat. It is firepower that rules.

Alfred

(in reply to LoBaron)

Post #: 20

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/19/2013 11:22:03 AM

LoBaron
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

What you is buy a fast reinforcement of a hex with a huge waste of AV. As Alfred pointed out already, without strat mode the adjusted Allied AV could easily be 4k+ instead of just 1.6k.

I completely agree with his post btw, we just look at the situation from slightly different angles. His is as usual the best analysis of the situation.

In the example you are giving you are neglecting that you are sacrificing a huge ammount of AV for the sake of flexibility. This would default to failure against a landing with suffigient AV. I consider it a must for an amphib assault to provide at least AV to obermatch the expected enemy strenght in the remote area by a factor of 2:1, this includes forces that can be moved in as reinforcements.

Do not forget that with the 600AV available your landing would have been crushed by the Allied troop strenght matter what, albeit maybe 2-3 turns later.

_____________________________

(in reply to PT boat skipper)

Post #: 21

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/19/2013 11:24:32 AM

LoBaron
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 4776
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

Yeah sorry Alfred, I have seen differences where there are none, see my post above.

_____________________________

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 22

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/19/2013 11:33:55 AM

Alfred
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6685
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

Grollub's post #19 is spot on; plus it provides significant additional info.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with prepreparing static defences. In AE, unlike real life, static prepared positions can only be built in bases/dot base, not out in the field. In the game whatever field fortifications are built are immediately lost when the unit vacates the position, they cannot be bequeathed to the relieving unit. Plus out in the field units do not equally share the field fortification level.

There is a penalty attached to delivering units in strat mode so there is no "free lunch" associated with rushing such units to a prepared static defence located in a base/dot base hex.

Alfred

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 23

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/19/2013 12:57:32 PM

PT boat skipper
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 386
Joined: 7/17/2006
Status: offline

Well, the only thing I was interested in was if the penalty, in this simulation, is too low. My feelling is that it should be a bit higher. Perhaps -90%.

/J

(in reply to Alfred)

Post #: 24

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/19/2013 9:40:12 PM

PT boat skipper
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 386
Joined: 7/17/2006
Status: offline

Below is the alternative with no allied strat-move units moving into hex. Nothing else changed.

/J

Ground combat at Jaffna (31,45)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 28725 troops, 393 guns, 90 vehicles, Assault Value = 626

Defending force 6676 troops, 66 guns, 254 vehicles, Assault Value = 280

Japanese adjusted assault: 482

Allied adjusted defense: 331

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 3)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), preparation(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
1538 casualties reported
Squads: 17 destroyed, 118 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 10 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 11 disabled
Guns lost 10 (2 destroyed, 8 disabled)
Vehicles lost 9 (2 destroyed, 7 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
94 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 9 disabled
Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 9 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 2 disabled
Vehicles lost 16 (3 destroyed, 13 disabled)

Assaulting units:
24th Division
2nd Recon Regiment
25th Division
4th Ind.Mixed Regiment
Yokosuka 3rd SNLF
2nd Army
20th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
7th Air Defense AA Regiment
2nd Medium Field Artillery Regiment
7th Base Force
54th JNAF AF Unit
55th JNAF AF Unit

Defending units:
2/10th Armoured Regiment
2/8th Armoured Regiment
3/4 Ghurka Rifles Battalion
99th Indian Brigade
109th RN Base Force

(in reply to PT boat skipper)

Post #: 25

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/21/2013 4:22:53 PM

PT boat skipper
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 386
Joined: 7/17/2006
Status: offline

If anyone is interested I did a late war experiment.

The only thing I changed between the two battles was deploying Japanese reinforcements in strat-mode. The allies invaded with three divisions and I reinforced with six divisions (simple rule = double the amount). As allied I invaded Kagoshima on Kyushu. Note: all reinforcements came by strat-mode RR from the Japanese main island Honshu, and not from Kyushu. I did actually forget to strat-mode a Japanese Corps HQ which I had planned to do.

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Sep 09, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Kagoshima (102,60)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 26834 troops, 413 guns, 577 vehicles, Assault Value = 781

Defending force 9602 troops, 129 guns, 0 vehicles, Assault Value = 198

Allied engineers reduce fortifications to 4

Allied adjusted assault: 624

Japanese adjusted defense: 157

Allied assault odds: 3 to 1 (fort level 4)

Allied Assault reduces fortifications to 2

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), preparation(-), morale(-)
experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
387 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 26 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 3 (1 destroyed, 2 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
516 casualties reported
Squads: 0 destroyed, 66 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 11 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 3 disabled
Guns lost 12 (2 destroyed, 10 disabled)

Assaulting units:
7th Infantry Division
2nd Marine Division
27th Infantry Division
XXIV US Corps

Defending units:
156th Division
Kagoshima Fortress
26th JNAF AF Unit

And below is the case when the Japanese reinforce with strat-mode (all Japanese divisions have disruption 0 after the battle).

AFTER ACTION REPORTS FOR Sep 09, 45
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ground combat at Kagoshima (102,60)

Allied Shock attack

Attacking force 26834 troops, 413 guns, 577 vehicles, Assault Value = 781

Defending force 87594 troops, 759 guns, 42 vehicles, Assault Value = 2801

Allied adjusted assault: 218

Japanese adjusted defense: 1564

Allied assault odds: 1 to 7 (fort level 5)

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), op mode(-), preparation(-) Note: op mode = strat mode
experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+), fatigue(-) Note: fatigue? I did not change anything.

Japanese ground losses:
292 casualties reported
Squads: 4 destroyed, 28 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 2 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 8 (2 destroyed, 6 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
2833 casualties reported
Squads: 13 destroyed, 294 disabled
Non Combat: 3 destroyed, 30 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 38 disabled
Guns lost 36 (1 destroyed, 35 disabled)
Vehicles lost 13 (2 destroyed, 11 disabled)

Assaulting units:
2nd Marine Division
7th Infantry Division
27th Infantry Division
XXIV US Corps

Defending units:
140th Division
52nd Division
73rd Division
3rd Guards Division
12th Division
81st Division
156th Division
Kagoshima Fortress
26th JNAF AF Unit

(in reply to PT boat skipper)

Post #: 26

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/22/2013 3:33:21 AM

Grollub
Matrix Legion of Merit

Posts: 6674
Joined: 10/9/2005
From: Lulea, Sweden
Status: offline

Looks quite right

_____________________________

“Not mastering metaphores is like cooking pasta when the train is delayed"

(in reply to PT boat skipper)

Post #: 27

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/22/2013 5:33:23 AM

Banzan
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 288
Joined: 3/13/2010
From: Bremen, Germany
Status: offline

I'm not sure why you use shock attacks instead of deliberated attacks. Its usefull if you have a major advantage in firepower or fight against weak units, but i wouldn't use it against better allied units. The firepower of most allied untis will skyrocket quite fast due upgrades and support units. Serveral early war units are quite well trained already and within one month their morale may keep up, too. Not everything is a poor burmeese or dutch squad. :) Taking additional fire may not be the best way to go.

For your late war test:
You may need to redo that serveral times before you get usefulll results, too much can go wrong (bad rolls).

< Message edited by Banzan -- 9/22/2013 5:45:45 AM >

(in reply to Grollub)

Post #: 28

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/22/2013 6:59:19 PM

PT boat skipper
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 386
Joined: 7/17/2006
Status: offline

I used shock attacks because (see above in my late war experiment) I had a clear advantage in numbers/firepower and wanted to capture the port/airfield asap before enemy reinforcements arrive.

No, I do not need to redo it since it clearly shows what I have be trying (poorly I admit) to argue above, namely that strat-mode movements means synchronized reinforcements that instantly bring valuable combat power to the fight. Yes, as has also been mentioned above, the combat power is considerable less than if the units would have been in combat mode, but - and this is the catch - I would rather use 1,000 adjusted AV on the beach bringing the enemy attack to a 1-2 rather than 2,000 adjusted AV in rear areas where it has zero effect on the battle. The experiment also shows that there is no extra vulnerability in moving strat-mode units forward - as long as the enemy get a 1-2 result (this is easy as a defender you do have 100% intelligence of the enemy numbers on the beach while the enemy can only guess how many troops you will be able to railroad in).

Furthermore, it also shows the interesting feature that not only are units railroaded in from far away, escaping all naval bombardments (day and/or night) as well as air attacks, those units are also transported from the railheads to the beach pillboxes in an instance. All well? Not in my book as a wargame designer.

I should also mention that I find naval bombardment seriously lacking in power.

What is my suggestion?

I would prefer two different defensive postures in one hex. In order to fully conquer a hex you first need to do 1) and then 2).

1) The beach (including port and airfield)
2) Hinterlands (the hex sides)

This will have the effect that as a defender I can choose what to defend with every unit in the hex. The hex (port/airfield) or the exits from the hex (excluding of course the hex sides from where the enemy enters). Defending the hex (including the beach) will mean that my units ordered to do so are much more vulnerable to naval bombardments than the present model. Defending the hex sides will mean that I may allow the enemy to get ashore and gain control of the airfield/port, but will still be in control of the hex sides, and therefore the exists, until the enemy defeats all the units present in the hex. I will also be much less vulnerable to naval bombardment (perhaps even less so than the present model).

And here is the catch, all units arriving during the turn to reinforce the defence should by default get the setting defending hinterlands (2). This is to model that it takes considerable time and effort to assemble units from the railheads and head to the beach. It should not happen in an instance (less than one turn) and therefore without any warning to the attacker.

I believe this may improve land combat considerable.

Atolls should of course only have one alternative (1).

/J

quote:

ORIGINAL: Banzan

I'm not sure why you use shock attacks instead of deliberated attacks. Its usefull if you have a major advantage in firepower or fight against weak units, but i wouldn't use it against better allied units. The firepower of most allied untis will skyrocket quite fast due upgrades and support units. Serveral early war units are quite well trained already and within one month their morale may keep up, too. Not everything is a poor burmeese or dutch squad. :) Taking additional fire may not be the best way to go.

For your late war test:
You may need to redo that serveral times before you get usefulll results, too much can go wrong (bad rolls).

< Message edited by PT boat skipper -- 9/22/2013 7:06:36 PM >

(in reply to Banzan)

Post #: 29

RE: Combat modification strat mode - 9/22/2013 7:50:10 PM

Banzan
Matrix Veteran

Posts: 288
Joined: 3/13/2010
From: Bremen, Germany
Status: offline

I think you jump too fast to a conclusion. Look at battles again.

Combat modifiers Battle 1:
Attacker: shock(+)
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), preparation(-), morale(-) experience(-)

Combat modifiers Battle 2:
Attacker: shock(+), fatigue(-)
Defender: terrain(+), forts(+), op mode(-), preparation(-)experience(-)

Those battles started quite different. You can run a battle quite often and due RNG you'll see a lot of different results. Failed leader rolls can be quite destructive in WitPAE.

Your idea how to handle strat. moving may be better, but we have to live with what we got. Michaelm can't change the engine, only parameters of it. And i seriously doubt that's possible to do within this game engine.

(in reply to PT boat skipper)

Post #: 30