Ground combat again - serious problem (Full Version)

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



Message

pauk -> Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 9:12:10 AM)




Hi all... as you may know, Andy and I are in the middle of the fierce battle for Bandou. I've sent army from north and start siege of the Bandou, while his units are stuck at the Songkhia. Here is a picture and explanation what happend in last few days:


[image]local://upfiles/4569/1D9F64CF476A470DB28B5F99EB7501C5.jpg[/image]


Now, enemy units can not move from Songkhia and reinforce Bandou because i blocked his units/bases and that is clear for me enough. But, it seems that my units at Songkhia (i'm outnumbered there 3:1) which bombard enemy at the Songkhia cancels the movement of the enemy troops there.

Andy told me that he sent units in hex just north of Songkhia which is controlled by Allies but my bombardment cancels their movement. He didn't raise this question and complained about that, actually it was me who started this (i've complained about landings of 1000 starved men in hex 60 miles N of Bandou just to cut off my Bandou Assault army from supply/retreat "knowing" that these troops wont retreat because they dont have retreat path. I was wrong completely - Andy didn't do that intentionaly and this fragment retreat after first attack towards VP?!?!)...

The bottom line is that i can not be called ground combat expert.[:D].

now we are coming to the "issue". As far as i know, enemy units from Songkhia wouldn't move to the hex north of the base anyway. They would stuck at 59 miles, even if i stop with the bombardments at Songkhia. At least that is my knowlegde based on experience. I'm pretty sure that i was able retreat my units in similar situations only when i ordered them to move to the some of friendly bases in my rear totally controled by me and retreat path is open, not ordering them to retreat in open hex. in the latter case, they remained stuck....

Andy told me different, and he might be rigtht - i'm not ground combat guru. So here are my questions:

1. Would Allied units move to hex 60 miles north of Bandou if i didn't bombard them? (note: these units are cut of supply and i did it just to starve his troops (spend their supply) because i was sure that they are stuck anyway)

2. If they can move to 60 miles hex north of S. is it gamey to bombard those troops and prevent them from reinforcing Bandou?

It is not so easy answer, right? At the first thought it seems gamey, but then again it is by design and not clear exploit. Enemy should keep its rear better ( not only Bandou but also hex 60 miles north of Bandou to keep supply route from VP open) and i wouldn't be able to threat him and put enemy units in great jeopardy. But at the second thought, "exploiting" the bad ground combat design can make it gamey (and i'm just trying to image what would i feel if that happens to me)

Note that this is not a thread "My daddy is stronger than yours" type: both Andy and I are aware that this situation is very touchy. So i would like that you guys answer on my questions and post your thoughts. Every help is welcomed!






Andy Mac -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 10:36:49 AM)

OK guys Pauk has laid out the situation its the old chestnut Ground Bombardment re setting movement.

Pauk has ZOC over Bandou and Songkia but not over the hex in the middle which is 100% allied but not a base hex so I cannot target it for un stoppabe movement.

I have been trying for days to move units to reinforce my airhead but failing because of the Bombardment Attacks that cause zero damage.

Songhkia has 3:1 allied ground superiorty in AV and manpower but not a single unit will move out of the hex because of the Bombardment attacks

My troops are at full suppply but only move 45 miles max on a railway hex in a day so each night the movement is reset when Pauk Bombards his attacks do between 0 and 13 man casualties.

There is no reason other than Pauks Bombardment Attacks that my troops would not move to the hex in the middle I know this as I have seen this many times.

Had Pauk ZOC over all three hexes then correctly my units would not move and as Pauk claims would stall at 59 miles but in this case where he does not have ZOC over the middle hex my troops would be moving BUT for the meaningless bombardment attacks

This is a bug and is pissing me off we need opinions guys.

As pauk said I had not raised it before he raised an issue which was wrong on my part quietly fuming over open communication is never a good thing !!!!

Andy



Andy Mac -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 11:42:53 AM)

As I see it there are 3 questions to be answered.

1. Technical  - If Pauk stopped bombardments at Songkia would my units move to the hex in between which is allied ZOC - The answer to this is yes I think (I am almost 100% sure on this)
2. Game v Reality - Is this situation a bug or working as intended - this is less clear cut adjacent ZOC to adjacent ZOC is clear the hex in the middle makes it unclear.
3. Logic - The 'realism' test. This is probably where Pauk and I disagree. I have a garrison at Bandou defending north with 30,000 men so far no japanese breakthroughs and I still hold the AF.

120 miles to the south my main army is attacking Songkia 150,000 men attacking c 60,000 (3:1 in AV) Pauk is sitting behind his forts apart from bombardment attacks that do no damage.

My units are fully supplied.

Should the allied player be able to in this situation adjust deployments to move some of his attacking army from facing the enemy in the south to the north.

My answer

I accept that as we deal in 60 mile hexes we have to live with some simplification to take account of this. If the hexes were adjacent or Pauk had ZOC over them all then I would have no issue with being unable to transfer troops fropm one to the other. But they are not I have a ZOC free zone in the middle so to me the allied units are surrounded in a giant 180 mile wide pocket which I should be allowed to adjust deployments and only cannot because of the bombardment attacks.


Andy



pauk -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 11:57:02 AM)


We just opened Pandora box, i think.

Logic - realism: if we both agree on that (not that i'm saying i will not agree with you) that would put even more questions and problems.

Technically i don't see any difference in the 180 and 60 miles pockets so if you land in two nearby bases (i'm sure that you know what i'm talking about) which are under my possesion you will easily denie any movement it certain area. Now, where is the problem: As we agree that game model is poorly modeled and i agree not to "exploit" that, then we could have reverse situation in the future. The main difference would be "exploiting" ground combat design too (it is well known fact that troops whose hold bridgehead and not the base (and don't have retreat path) can resist for a weeeeeeks).

I can not see an easy solution of this issue right now.

But before we start "if I then you, what if" discussion[;)], i would like to hear answer to question 1.

Come on, ground experts where are you when we need you?[:D]



pauk -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 12:02:22 PM)


re: fully supplied units.

It will be interesting to read your part of AAR - incredible how your units can be fully supplied with no supply route opened (i guess you are supplying them with C-47 but still it seems too much units to supply - from the JFB point of view (knowing the "capacity" of IJA/N air transport)...

i would expect that after attack on Songkhia - where your units were already cut off from land supply route - and after few attacks on Bandou allied units can face with supply shortage....




Andy Mac -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 12:48:13 PM)

Sorry Pauk we are not going to agree on this one I see bombardment attacks resetting movement in these circumstances where you dont have ZOC as a bug you dont its as simple as that I think



Andy Mac -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 12:48:49 PM)

I am not attacking to preserve supplies a couple are below optimal but most are ok



Local Yokel -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 1:34:08 PM)

A couple of links that might be relevant:

Impossible to disengage troops
any chance that the ground movement can be fixed?

Posts in these suggest that Allied movement from Songkhla to Bandou should not be reset by a bombardment attack, because the destination hex (Bandou) is an Allied base - this is supposed to be exception to the rule/bug that bombardment resets the miles travelled counter to 0.

quote:

ORIGINAL (Impossible to disengage troops thread): Mr.Frag

Correct, pick a friendly base instead of a hex ... Mike has coded it that if you pick a base, it means you are serious and they will not be reset. A hex target will be reset.


Or does the presence of Japanese ZOC in Bandou hex prevent Bandou from being a hex from which valid supply path to Songkhla can be traced for Allies?

My understanding is that it's not ZOC's but rather existence/absence of valid supply path that determines whether LCU movement is possible. However, ZOC's seem to influence movement indirectly because they can interrupt a supply path.

I assume from Pauk's original post that an alternative supply path for Allies from Vic. Point to Songkhla is unavailable



pauk -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 1:36:01 PM)

ok, since i was owerhelmed with answers/thoughts, I recreated the same situation in H2H)

Answer to question 1: - yes, Andy is right - his units would retreat to Bandou.

So, if there any brave guy here to express his thoughts on my question #2. or Andy's 2. and 3.

Andy, that is why i asked here for opinion(s). I do not want to go further with our game until we reach some kind of agreement.

(if this is a bug, perhaps than i could agree with you, but if this works it was designed well,then...)




pauk -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 1:41:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Local Yokel

A couple of links that might be relevant:

Impossible to disengage troops
any chance that the ground movement can be fixed?

Posts in these suggest that Allied movement from Songkhla to Bandou should not be reset by a bombardment attack, because the destination hex (Bandou) is an Allied base - this is supposed to be exception to the rule/bug that bombardment resets the miles travelled counter to 0.

quote:

ORIGINAL (Impossible to disengage troops thread): Mr.Frag

Correct, pick a friendly base instead of a hex ... Mike has coded it that if you pick a base, it means you are serious and they will not be reset. A hex target will be reset.


Or does the presence of Japanese ZOC in Bandou hex prevent Bandou from being a hex from which valid supply path to Songkhla can be traced for Allies?

My understanding is that it's not ZOC's but rather existence/absence of valid supply path that determines whether LCU movement is possible. However, ZOC's seem to influence movement indirectly because they can interrupt a supply path.

I assume from Pauk's original post that an alternative supply path for Allies from Vic. Point to Songkhla is unavailable


thanks! Yes, supply path from VP to Songkhia is unavailable. Both Bandou and Songkhia are cut off supply.



Feinder -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 2:03:16 PM)

I agree that ground combat is buggered to the point of suck.  Unfortunately, it's -SO- buggered that I don't think there's anything that can be done about it (without a complete re-write, and that's not going to happen).

I'm in a similar situation where I have about 90k Chinese troops that are cut off, but refuse march westward.  But the truth is, Bilbow and I were both aware of the ground combat mechanics, and it's utter suckiness.  He didn't do anything gamey, and my guys are just stuck there (ane will most likely die, throwing away a lot of points and opening the door to Chungking).

While I do agree that I hate the "reset march on bombardment" and "no move into enemy ZOC even if empty" conventions, and I -don't- think it's realistic; it's hard to call it a bug, since it -is- "working as designed".  It's just not doing what -we- want it to do.

-F-



Local Yokel -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 2:06:02 PM)

Very reluctant to stick my head above the parapet on this! [sm=00000036.gif][sm=00000007.gif][sm=00000106.gif]

However, the posting by Mr.Frag I quoted does suggest that plotting movement to a base rather than to a hex makes a difference, and the game's behaviour in this respect is by design - even if you don't agree with the design!

Has Andy actually plotted a movement to Bandou rather than just to the adjacent hex? If so, is he finding that his miles travelled counter is being re-set? If it is then that would suggest the game isn't working as it was designed to.

I suppose Songkhla is technically not cut off from supply, even if a re-supply convoy has no chance of running the gauntlet successfully!



BigJ62 -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 3:08:24 PM)

Based on the current situation Andy should be allowed to move his LCU's regardless of bombardment. Also how can you own a hex if nobody is there?



pauk -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 3:21:06 PM)


are you refering to hex 60 miles south of VP? Although it is not visible on picture attached i have tk regiment there - you may look for details in my AAR.....



jwilkerson -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 4:01:17 PM)

If I understand the question correctly, it is more of a "ground movement" question than a "ground combat" question, but no matter, we will discuss the movement question.

During a recent turn in my Moses game, I too wanted to move one hex from a base to a non-base hex, but bombardments reset my move to zero. So to work around it I plottted a move from my contested base, to another one of my bases in the rear along a rail line. This allowed my unit to move out from under the bombardment. So as far as I know, this is how it works. You can at least move, regardless of bombardment, from a contested base to a friendly base along a rail, road, trail path.



Andy Mac -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 4:18:13 PM)

Wont work Joe I have one contested base and an enemy base the under siege by me connected by a rail line the path to my other bases are stopped by Jap ZOC. (although they weren't when it all began)

I assume when I clear the tank unit off the trail I will be able to plot movement to VP but that will put the units onto the parrallel bad road path so 30 - 60 days to get to Bandou minimum.

The point is I should have been able been move but cannot because the bombardments are resetting my movement.

Andy





Andy Mac -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 4:28:40 PM)

Just to give an example on day 1 when this all started a Tank Bn was able to move to the hex because it covered 60+ miles and was out of the hex before the bombardment occurred Inf etc cover only 45 miles max in a turn so they cannot move quickly enough.

Whatever happens we will go on but I have to be honest losing Bandou and the garrison surrendering would piss me off no end because its just plain wrong.

Am I cut off yes, has the attack stalled temporarily - yes, has Pauk done brilliantly yes but this is a bug to me pure and simple the airhead should not fall becuase I have more AV and more men in the theatre than Pauk but they just cannot move.

I estimate about a 30% chance of holding on where it should be 100%.






pauk -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 4:33:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

If I understand the question correctly, it is more of a "ground movement" question than a "ground combat" question, but no matter, we will discuss the movement question.

During a recent turn in my Moses game, I too wanted to move one hex from a base to a non-base hex, but bombardments reset my move to zero. So to work around it I plottted a move from my contested base, to another one of my bases in the rear along a rail line. This allowed my unit to move out from under the bombardment. So as far as I know, this is how it works. You can at least move, regardless of bombardment, from a contested base to a friendly base along a rail, road, trail path.



Yes, i named the tread pretty poorly... that is how it works for me too. the only possible reason i could think why enemy cant retreat from Songkhia to Bandou (see picture attached in post #1) is because Bandou is contested by Allies and Japan (AJ)?

I know that enemy troops would't have any problem to retreat to Bandou if i didn't move units there. Is it possible that Bandou and its hex must be totally under the Allied control then units would retreat?

The main question here now is:

is it by design or it is bug?

thanks to all!



herwin -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 4:43:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

As I see it there are 3 questions to be answered.

1. Technical  - If Pauk stopped bombardments at Songkia would my units move to the hex in between which is allied ZOC - The answer to this is yes I think (I am almost 100% sure on this)
2. Game v Reality - Is this situation a bug or working as intended - this is less clear cut adjacent ZOC to adjacent ZOC is clear the hex in the middle makes it unclear.
3. Logic - The 'realism' test. This is probably where Pauk and I disagree. I have a garrison at Bandou defending north with 30,000 men so far no japanese breakthroughs and I still hold the AF.

120 miles to the south my main army is attacking Songkia 150,000 men attacking c 60,000 (3:1 in AV) Pauk is sitting behind his forts apart from bombardment attacks that do no damage.

My units are fully supplied.

Should the allied player be able to in this situation adjust deployments to move some of his attacking army from facing the enemy in the south to the north.

My answer

I accept that as we deal in 60 mile hexes we have to live with some simplification to take account of this. If the hexes were adjacent or Pauk had ZOC over them all then I would have no issue with being unable to transfer troops fropm one to the other. But they are not I have a ZOC free zone in the middle so to me the allied units are surrounded in a giant 180 mile wide pocket which I should be allowed to adjust deployments and only cannot because of the bombardment attacks.


Andy



This is closely related to the problem where bombardment attacks prevent you from retreating from enemy contact. In reality, you can--it's called a retreat, retirement, or delaying action depending on how you handle it. The fact that the game doesn't allow you to do this makes the ground combat system complete fantasy.



jwilkerson -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 5:34:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

If I understand the question correctly, it is more of a "ground movement" question than a "ground combat" question, but no matter, we will discuss the movement question.

During a recent turn in my Moses game, I too wanted to move one hex from a base to a non-base hex, but bombardments reset my move to zero. So to work around it I plottted a move from my contested base, to another one of my bases in the rear along a rail line. This allowed my unit to move out from under the bombardment. So as far as I know, this is how it works. You can at least move, regardless of bombardment, from a contested base to a friendly base along a rail, road, trail path.



Yes, i named the tread pretty poorly... that is how it works for me too. the only possible reason i could think why enemy cant retreat from Songkhia to Bandou (see picture attached in post #1) is because Bandou is contested by Allies and Japan (AJ)?

I know that enemy troops would't have any problem to retreat to Bandou if i didn't move units there. Is it possible that Bandou and its hex must be totally under the Allied control then units would retreat?

The main question here now is:

is it by design or it is bug?

thanks to all!


As I've said in other similar situations the question "is it design or bug" is tough to answer, because only the original designers know and they probably have forgotten! [:D]

But I can speculate that it might be like it is to give players a tool to mitigate against enemy troops walking through their lines. I've had this happen more in earlier games ( 1.2 ... 1.3 ... 1.4 ) than in current games ( 1.8+ ) but it still happens occasionally. Same hex combat systems struggle with defining a "front line" and WITP is no exception. So, perhaps, the bombardment/reset thingy is in there to help with the "front line" issue. But we probably will never know for sure what the original intent was.

As to your game, you're certainly more than welcome to ask the forum for input, but your game belongs to you and Andy and you guys need to decide how to resolve the issue in your game. Long running games like yours involve give and take on both sides - as I'm sure you know. So some sort of "compromise" would seem to be in order. If you let Andy "off the hook" this time, what do you get in return? But most of these long running games will have numerous unexpected circumstances arise and these sometimes require "negotiated solutions" .. I've had a number in my games as well. House rules can't foresee all possibilities.




Local Yokel -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 7:37:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

Just to give an example on day 1 when this all started a Tank Bn was able to move to the hex because it covered 60+ miles and was out of the hex before the bombardment occurred Inf etc cover only 45 miles max in a turn so they cannot move quickly enough.

Whatever happens we will go on but I have to be honest losing Bandou and the garrison surrendering would piss me off no end because its just plain wrong.

Am I cut off yes, has the attack stalled temporarily - yes, has Pauk done brilliantly yes but this is a bug to me pure and simple the airhead should not fall becuase I have more AV and more men in the theatre than Pauk but they just cannot move.

I estimate about a 30% chance of holding on where it should be 100%.



For Allied units in Songkhla, Bandou is the only base that potentially satisfies the supply path requirements for the plotting of a valid move - Vic. Point isn't available for this due to Pauk's armoured unit in the adjacent hex.

I expected the presence of a Japanese ZOC in Bandou to prevent its use as a destination hex to which Allied units could move, regardless of bombardment attacks, until I saw Andy's post above. It implies that the Jap. ZOC at Bandou didn't inhibit the plotting of a valid move from Songkhla to Bandou, and that's why his tank unit got through.

If Bandou was a valid destination for the tank unit, it should also have been valid for the infantry. But Andy's post quoted above makes it clear that something prevented the infantry from getting through. The bombardment attack? Whatever the reason, doesn't appear that the movement rule requiring a clear supply path to a base is being applied consistently.

This looks like a bug, or perhaps an unintended consequence of the introduction into the game of ZOC's.



herwin -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/6/2007 8:30:00 PM)

If you work with 5 mile hexes, 2 turns per week, and divisions/brigades, you can justify zones of control, since game units can't react the way they do in reality at that mesh. With 5 mile hexes, divisions/brigades, and one-day turns, zones of control cannot be justified, but you have to model formations and their effect on movement rates and combat power. The game uses 60-mile hexes--which means ZoCs are not just invalid; you must model within-hex combat and holding partial hexes. At a scale of 5 mile hexes, etc., delaying actions can be modelled by ZoC entry costs, with mobile units being able to retreat once slower enemy units deploy--the critical issue is relative movement rates. At a scale of 60-mile (100-kilometer) hexes, all of this takes place within the hex. At that scale with one-day turns, a force attacking a defensive position advances a kilometer or two a day (basically nil); advancing against a delaying action, it gains perhaps 10 kilometers a day (15 at most), and pursuing a retreating defender, it gains about 25 kilometers a day. Artillery bombardment has exactly no effect on a retreating defender--they aren't there to be hit. You can't even prevent a retreating force from entering a hex where you have troops, unless those troops can hold the entirety of the hex.

Note that partial ocean hexes are basically just a bit easier to capture as a whole. Atolls and the like have no strategic depth at all (perhaps 5-10 kilometers at most), so a strong shock attack is all that is needed to capture them.



Andy Mac -> RE: Ground combat again - serious problem (8/7/2007 12:12:04 AM)

Thanks GUys I am 100% convinced I am right this is a bug no other way to view it I appreciate the thoughts of everyone I just simple do not see how an Army 3x as strong as the local Japanese Army could not move a small fraction of its force by rail 60 miles to a hex with NO Jap ZOC and then into the hex with Jap ZOC that is threatened as it is all via interior lines.

I am never going to accept this is correct but it is Pauks call and I will see it through no mattrer what



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.764648