No retreat, no surrender

No retreat, no surrender (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room

Message

Onime No Kyo -> No retreat, no surrender (6/29/2006 4:25:03 AM)
I know that "No Retreat, No Surrender" is a nifty slogan and all, but this is silly. I mean, c'mon, 47 to 1?! [image]local://upfiles/11853/626802133AD04C28BA76794E397EAA8A.jpg[/image] NOTE: A turn later I had an 83 to 1....with similar results.

Onime No Kyo -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/29/2006 5:34:49 AM)
OK, time to be honest. All aspects of ground combat are not actually functional. Both the casualties and outcome result from a simple algorithm random number generator. [image]local://upfiles/11853/CE29FEC651C1460186040EFCFBB709A1.jpg[/image]

rtrapasso -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/29/2006 5:41:43 AM)
Get used to it - you can get odds of several THOUSAND to 1 without a surrender! [X(]

pasternakski -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/29/2006 7:49:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso Get used to it - you can get odds of several THOUSAND to 1 without a surrender! [X(] Unless you are Paris Hilton, in which case, you get several thousand surrenders. I have always suspected that those responsible for this design got a glimmering from time to time that they were actually creating a game in which WWII in the Pacific would always be decided in about four weeks, so they panicked and built bullsh1t mechanics in various critical places that would slow things down a little. Besides, Grigsby's designs have always had some "WTF" in the combat routines.

dtravel -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/29/2006 9:13:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pasternakski quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso Get used to it - you can get odds of several THOUSAND to 1 without a surrender! [X(] Unless you are Paris Hilton, in which case, you get several thousand surrenders. I have always suspected that those responsible for this design got a glimmering from time to time that they were actually creating a game in which WWII in the Pacific would always be decided in about four weeks, so they panicked and built bullsh1t mechanics in various critical places that would slow things down a little. Somehow I suspect that in assuming he foresaw that far ahead you are giving Grigsby too much credit. quote: Besides, Grigsby's designs have always had some "WTF" in the combat routines. Some?

JeffroK -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/29/2006 10:56:40 AM)
I find that ground combat happens so rarely that a few odd results dont hurt. Also it wouldnt be hard to find situations where a Division(-) held off a Corps for a day or so. What you are expecting is that a battle which could last 3-4 days or more (How long did Gona-Buna, Imphal/Kohima or Milne Bay take? Okinawa didnt fall overnight) be resolved in 1 Combat. You will find that the bigger battalions will win, but along the way they cop some lumps and you have to decide whether to perservere or give up.

Sneer -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/29/2006 11:01:16 AM)
this LCU bug/feature made me resigning from russian campaign - with big enough enemy stacks it can take even whole year or two to clear it

Onime No Kyo -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/29/2006 5:02:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JeffK I find that ground combat happens so rarely that a few odd results dont hurt. Also it wouldnt be hard to find situations where a Division(-) held off a Corps for a day or so. What you are expecting is that a battle which could last 3-4 days or more (How long did Gona-Buna, Imphal/Kohima or Milne Bay take? Okinawa didnt fall overnight) be resolved in 1 Combat. You will find that the bigger battalions will win, but along the way they cop some lumps and you have to decide whether to perservere or give up. I understand what you are saying, but its not what expect from the game at all. What I do expect is that if I have 5 divisions, with armor, artillery, and plenty of endineers go up against 2 brigades and 5 base forces that the odds will not be 0-1. I also expect some realistic outcomes. If the game angine itself has determined that the odds of my success are 47 to 1, I expect to succeed.

rtrapasso -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/29/2006 5:25:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sneer this LCU bug/feature made me resigning from russian campaign - with big enough enemy stacks it can take even whole year or two to clear it Actually, you can get around this - bomb the snot out of the units. Once they are out of supply, they begin surrendering. If they have supply and are out in the country (or at least not holding a base) you can attack them forever (it seems).

niceguy2005 -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/29/2006 6:31:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo I know that "No Retreat, No Surrender" is a nifty slogan and all, but this is silly. I mean, c'mon, 47 to 1?! [image]local://upfiles/11853/626802133AD04C28BA76794E397EAA8A.jpg[/image] NOTE: A turn later I had an 83 to 1....with similar results. DO you have engineers there? Are the defenders behind forts? I think if the fort level is sufficient it can take a long time to finish off an enemy. I read this somewhere recently in a thread. Can someone verify that? MY opponent has been forcing retreats and surrenders in China with odds as low as 2:1 or 3:1. He brought engineers and over the course of a couple of weeks worked the forts down to 0. After that the troops surrendered on the first attack over 2:1.

rtrapasso -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/29/2006 6:38:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 quote: ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo I know that "No Retreat, No Surrender" is a nifty slogan and all, but this is silly. I mean, c'mon, 47 to 1?! [image]local://upfiles/11853/626802133AD04C28BA76794E397EAA8A.jpg[/image] NOTE: A turn later I had an 83 to 1....with similar results. DO you have engineers there? Are the defenders behind forts? I think if the fort level is sufficient it can take a long time to finish off an enemy. I read this somewhere recently in a thread. Can someone verify that? MY opponent has been forcing retreats and surrenders in China with odds as low as 2:1 or 3:1. He brought engineers and over the course of a couple of weeks worked the forts down to 0. After that the troops surrendered on the first attack over 2:1. i'm thinking these guys are out in the "boonies", so to speak. i've never seen a city/base defense like this, but it is typical for guys out in the hills/woods with no where to go. They resist attacks like this for weeks or even months.

niceguy2005 -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/29/2006 7:02:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso i'm thinking these guys are out in the "boonies", so to speak. i've never seen a city/base defense like this, but it is typical for guys out in the hills/woods with no where to go. They resist attacks like this for weeks or even months. This is true, or even if they have lost control of the base, or never had it to begin with. I think the idea in that case is not to bother with them.

rtrapasso -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/29/2006 8:05:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso i'm thinking these guys are out in the "boonies", so to speak. i've never seen a city/base defense like this, but it is typical for guys out in the hills/woods with no where to go. They resist attacks like this for weeks or even months. This is true, or even if they have lost control of the base, or never had it to begin with. I think the idea in that case is not to bother with them. Trusting soul... enemy hanging around can get into all kinds of mischief (at least, i try to get my guys to cause problems.) Usually, though, they just up as training targets for my opponent's aircraft... [8\|] [:'(]

niceguy2005 -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/29/2006 11:24:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: ORIGINAL: niceguy2005 quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso i'm thinking these guys are out in the "boonies", so to speak. i've never seen a city/base defense like this, but it is typical for guys out in the hills/woods with no where to go. They resist attacks like this for weeks or even months. This is true, or even if they have lost control of the base, or never had it to begin with. I think the idea in that case is not to bother with them. Trusting soul... enemy hanging around can get into all kinds of mischief (at least, i try to get my guys to cause problems.) Usually, though, they just up as training targets for my opponent's aircraft... [8\|] [:'(] Yep, probably will bite me in the butt one of these days. I tell you this game is teaching me a lot about not sweating the details.

Onime No Kyo -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/30/2006 3:43:08 AM)
RT had it right, this was out in the boonies, so to speak. The problem with these guys was that they were sitting astride the road that my supplies were moving on. Had to get them off or 6 of my divisions plus sundry engeneers and HQs would have withred on the vine. This battle was two full strength IJA divisions, 18th and 2nd IIRC, against 2 halfstrength Indian divisions (one of which had recently retreated). As it turns out, these guys did not have a path of retreat. After 10 turns at odds ranging from 12 -1 to 84-1 the buggers finally surrendered.

pasternakski -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/30/2006 4:01:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo After 10 turns at odds ranging from 12 -1 to 84-1 the buggers finally surrendered. Consider yourself lucky. Sometimes you have to bring in a whole army and goose the odds to above 1,000-1 to kill anything. As has been noted above, you're better off attacking troops inside a base. They die much more easily. As an aside, I mentioned once upon a time long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away that there is a problem with supply for troops outside bases. You always have something like 106,000 supply in a non-base hex (even though individual unit screens will show something different). I was dismissed with a, "pooh, pooh, it's just a display anomaly" comment, but the combat results show that there is something other than the game afoot here, Watson... Also, try it from the other side sometime. Japanese troops have been known to hold out forever in a no-retreat situation against any and all odds - I have seen this happen when attacking at as much as 3,600-1.

pasternakski -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/30/2006 4:04:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dtravel Somehow I suspect that in assuming he foresaw that far ahead you are giving Grigsby too much credit. Last time I credited Grigsby with designing UV/WitP, I was brushed off with the comment that Mike Wood was really responsible, so I speak more generally these days.

dtravel -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/30/2006 5:20:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pasternakski quote: ORIGINAL: dtravel Somehow I suspect that in assuming he foresaw that far ahead you are giving Grigsby too much credit. Last time I credited Grigsby with designing UV/WitP, I was brushed off with the comment that Mike Wood was really responsible, so I speak more generally these days. Mayhaps Mr. Wood built UV and WiTP upon the code the Grigsby wrote twenty years ago.

pasternakski -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/30/2006 5:41:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dtravel Mayhaps Mr. Wood built UV and WiTP upon the code the Grigsby wrote twenty years ago. Well, I always suspected that UV was actually WitSP in drag, but... I fired up Carrier Force on my C64 emulator the other day ... it's still a good game. You have to do all the things UV/WitP don't allow you to do, and you better do 'em right, or your planes wind up in the drink. Now, if you could expand this game to cover the entire Pacific theater in hourly turns...

Onime No Kyo -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/30/2006 8:37:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pasternakski I fired up Carrier Force on my C64 emulator the other day ... it's still a good game. You have to do all the things UV/WitP don't allow you to do, and you better do 'em right, or your planes wind up in the drink. Now, if you could expand this game to cover the entire Pacific theater in hourly turns... I heard it told that old men sometimed drool....aparently its because of wargames. [:D][:D][:D]

Sneer -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/30/2006 9:19:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso Actually, you can get around this - bomb the snot out of the units. Once they are out of supply, they begin surrendering. If they have supply and are out in the country (or at least not holding a base) you can attack them forever (it seems). they don't need supplies- their number gets slowly down - maybe till the end of war they will go by half :-) with big enough stacks it is difficult to get 10+:1 and with such odds you have great losses and have to pause a week obvious bug

esteban -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/30/2006 4:11:56 PM)
The cause of this problem is that units that are in a non-base hex with no ability to retreat into supply will not surrender no matter how high you can jack up the odds against them. I would handle it as I do, with a house rule that once you are able to execute a 4-1 or 5-1 odds attack against such units (which would cause them to surrender if this bug wasn't present) then the units are counted as "surrendered" and they are left where they are, cannot move (they should be eliminated), cannot attack and cannot be evacuated if they are on a coast hex. This only happens if units are out of supply in the first place, so they will eventually starve to death anyway.

rtrapasso -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (6/30/2006 4:17:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: esteban The cause of this problem is that units that are in a non-base hex with no ability to retreat into supply will not surrender no matter how high you can jack up the odds against them. I would handle it as I do, with a house rule that once you are able to execute a 4-1 or 5-1 odds attack against such units (which would cause them to surrender if this bug wasn't present) then the units are counted as "surrendered" and they are left where they are, cannot move (they should be eliminated), cannot attack and cannot be evacuated if they are on a coast hex. This only happens if units are out of supply in the first place, so they will eventually starve to death anyway. Hmmm - my thought is that this was a deliberate design decision, and made as an attempt to simulate gorilla forces that often would spring up in areas where major forces had been defeated - i.e. - Dutch in DEI, US and Philippine forces in the PI, etc. Often, these forces would linger for years before being defeated (if they were defeated at all). Some defeated Dutch forces held out for about a year despite being in an area not particularly friendly to them (on Sumatra, iirc), while the US/PI forces held out in a "friendly" areas until The Return of The King, er, i mean Gen. MacArthur.

Onime No Kyo -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (7/1/2006 3:48:48 AM)
That would have required thought and planning, rt. As it stands, the land combat model is an after-thought. [sm=00000622.gif]

BrucePowers -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (7/1/2006 4:59:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: ORIGINAL: esteban The cause of this problem is that units that are in a non-base hex with no ability to retreat into supply will not surrender no matter how high you can jack up the odds against them. I would handle it as I do, with a house rule that once you are able to execute a 4-1 or 5-1 odds attack against such units (which would cause them to surrender if this bug wasn't present) then the units are counted as "surrendered" and they are left where they are, cannot move (they should be eliminated), cannot attack and cannot be evacuated if they are on a coast hex. This only happens if units are out of supply in the first place, so they will eventually starve to death anyway. Hmmm - my thought is that this was a deliberate design decision, and made as an attempt to simulate gorilla forces that often would spring up in areas where major forces had been defeated - i.e. - Dutch in DEI, US and Philippine forces in the PI, etc. Often, these forces would linger for years before being defeated (if they were defeated at all). Some defeated Dutch forces held out for about a year despite being in an area not particularly friendly to them (on Sumatra, iirc), while the US/PI forces held out in a "friendly" areas until The Return of The King, er, i mean Gen. MacArthur. Maybe I can do this in Mindanao. They sure didn't hold up well at the bases.

esteban -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (7/2/2006 8:27:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso quote: ORIGINAL: esteban The cause of this problem is that units that are in a non-base hex with no ability to retreat into supply will not surrender no matter how high you can jack up the odds against them. I would handle it as I do, with a house rule that once you are able to execute a 4-1 or 5-1 odds attack against such units (which would cause them to surrender if this bug wasn't present) then the units are counted as "surrendered" and they are left where they are, cannot move (they should be eliminated), cannot attack and cannot be evacuated if they are on a coast hex. This only happens if units are out of supply in the first place, so they will eventually starve to death anyway. Hmmm - my thought is that this was a deliberate design decision, and made as an attempt to simulate gorilla forces that often would spring up in areas where major forces had been defeated - i.e. - Dutch in DEI, US and Philippine forces in the PI, etc. Often, these forces would linger for years before being defeated (if they were defeated at all). Some defeated Dutch forces held out for about a year despite being in an area not particularly friendly to them (on Sumatra, iirc), while the US/PI forces held out in a "friendly" areas until The Return of The King, er, i mean Gen. MacArthur. Sadly, it is a bug. Put an Allied unit in a base against a 10-1 odd attack and the unit will surrender, even if there is no way to retreat into supply. Put the same Allied unit in a non-base hex against a 100-1 attack with no base to retreat towards, and that unit will hold out until it starves. There is no real difference in the combat situation, it has to do with the mechanics of the land combat system. I have had uber U.S. and Dutch base forces hold out against 600-1 attacks with very little loss due to this--so it's definitely a bug.

tsimmonds -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (7/3/2006 12:18:57 AM)
quote: I fired up Carrier Force on my C64 emulator the other day ... it's still a good game. My god how I loved Carrier Force. quote: This battle was two full strength IJA divisions, 18th and 2nd IIRC, against 2 halfstrength Indian divisions (one of which had recently retreated). As it turns out, these guys did not have a path of retreat. After 10 turns at odds ranging from 12 -1 to 84-1 the buggers finally surrendered. If you are in a hurry, and all you want is the real estate, always leave a retreat path. If what you want is to kill enemy LCUs, you should just count on it taking some time.

Andrew Brown -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (7/3/2006 2:15:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso Hmmm - my thought is that this was a deliberate design decision, and made as an attempt to simulate gorilla forces that often would spring up in areas where major forces had been defeated - i.e. - Dutch in DEI, US and Philippine forces in the PI, etc. Often, these forces would linger for years before being defeated (if they were defeated at all). Some defeated Dutch forces held out for about a year despite being in an area not particularly friendly to them (on Sumatra, iirc), while the US/PI forces held out in a "friendly" areas until The Return of The King, er, i mean Gen. MacArthur. FWIW that is the way I view it as well. As you say there were often cases where small groups held out in remote areas for months (i.e away from "bases").

dtravel -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (7/3/2006 4:35:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown quote: ORIGINAL: rtrapasso Hmmm - my thought is that this was a deliberate design decision, and made as an attempt to simulate gorilla forces that often would spring up in areas where major forces had been defeated - i.e. - Dutch in DEI, US and Philippine forces in the PI, etc. Often, these forces would linger for years before being defeated (if they were defeated at all). Some defeated Dutch forces held out for about a year despite being in an area not particularly friendly to them (on Sumatra, iirc), while the US/PI forces held out in a "friendly" areas until The Return of The King, er, i mean Gen. MacArthur. FWIW that is the way I view it as well. As you say there were often cases where small groups held out in remote areas for months (i.e away from "bases"). Which is nice in theory but falls apart very quickly when you remember that partisan groups were NOT capable of holding up divisional movements for weeks at a time.

Onime No Kyo -> RE: No retreat, no surrender (7/3/2006 4:40:50 AM)
True. However, they were able, in certain cases, to interdict the flow of supplies down a road. Not that what I started this thread with resembles such a case, but still.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

4.78125