The Battle of Algiers (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> WarPlan



Message

squatter -> The Battle of Algiers (12/17/2020 3:51:20 PM)

Here's a story from one of my current MP games.

UK (me) has invaded N Africa next to Algiers, end of 1941. There is one Italian corps on hold mode in Algiers. The UK surrounds Algiers with first four, then five full-strength UK corps. One of these corps has heavy artillery upgrade.
 
Axis has no air or naval support. UK has most of the Royal Navy present, four carriers, four BBs etc.
 
Over the next five turns, every turn UK airstrikes with four CVs, then attacks twice with all his corps. Many naval units lend shore bombardment to these attacks. My opponent uses supply trucks on the defender every turn to replenish. Beachhead supply is used to keep the Brits attacking.

All these attacks are between 3:1 and 6:1. That's a total of ten attacks at those odds. The Italian unit doesn't retreat or shatter.

On the 11th or 12th such attack it finally capitulates.
 
But when I set up a test head-to-head invading next to Tripoli, it takes me between one and three attacks (ie first or second turn of siege) to get either a retreat or a shatter on a full-strength Italian corps on hold). I tried this several times, always get a retreat in first/second attack.
 
What explains ten attacks and no result in my H2H game?

So the questions for me that arise from this are:

1 Are the ten combat results between 3:1 and 6:1... A) Slightly unlucky, B) Hugely unlucky, C) Something wrong there

2 Should supply trucks used in this way to defend a heavily blockaded port be subject to interdiction? As it stands, effectively they are being teleported in



Cigar King -> RE: The Battle of Algiers (12/17/2020 4:13:17 PM)

I vote for this is bogus. Supply trucks, should not be able to do this, and in fact, supplies transported via the sea should not work (or be severely reduced) in a heavily interdicted sea area.

More and more I am convinced that the sea rules are just broken. I can't imagine how this is going to play out in the Pacific.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: The Battle of Algiers (12/17/2020 4:14:10 PM)

What was the weather? Which unit was defending?

I will note that after Operation Uranus it took the Soviets 3 months (6 turns) to get the Germans to surrender. I believe they hit 1,000,000 casualties.

If the Italian has some mountain corps that was elite max fort + city it could be tough.

You also might not have saved enough planes for ground support. You should do 1-2 ground strikes as each has diminishing returns. But the main power comes from ground support.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: The Battle of Algiers (12/17/2020 4:30:23 PM)

I updated the moddable images and the supply one didn't have the new "!"
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19leJF6rCJeslp-WPLu3ddw1EAoG8VtMI/view?usp=sharing




squatter -> RE: The Battle of Algiers (12/17/2020 4:38:56 PM)

The weather was fine, or else I wouldn't have been able to generate the 3:1 - 6:1 odds. Ditto the fact that the defending corps was a vanilla Italian small garrison corps.

But surely this is less to do with which units were involved, rather the odds in question. Whatever units were involved, does that sequence of outcomes on ten rolls seem right without forcing a retreat? If it's just really bad luck then I'm fine with that. Just checking all working WAD.




squatter -> RE: The Battle of Algiers (12/17/2020 4:57:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

You also might not have saved enough planes for ground support. You should do 1-2 ground strikes as each has diminishing returns. But the main power comes from ground support.



This is interesting and gets at a question I was asking elsewhere - you are suggesting air units are relatively more effective in the ground support rule during ground combat as compared to using them to strike a unit directly before ground combat?



AlvaroSousa -> RE: The Battle of Algiers (12/17/2020 5:52:17 PM)

Depends on the situation. Also depends on how often you fly them. Lots of factors.




Cigar King -> RE: The Battle of Algiers (12/17/2020 6:18:16 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

What was the weather? Which unit was defending?

I will note that after Operation Uranus it took the Soviets 3 months (6 turns) to get the Germans to surrender. I believe they hit 1,000,000 casualties.


This sounds like a cop out. How about addressing issue. How was truck supply used in this case?

FWIW, I like this game, a lot. The ground game is excellent. I'd like to see the other aspects of the game reach that same level.



michaelCLARADY -> RE: The Battle of Algiers (12/21/2020 4:47:27 PM)

Mark it up to bad karma and move on.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: The Battle of Algiers (12/21/2020 7:23:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cigar King


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

What was the weather? Which unit was defending?

I will note that after Operation Uranus it took the Soviets 3 months (6 turns) to get the Germans to surrender. I believe they hit 1,000,000 casualties.


This sounds like a cop out. How about addressing issue. How was truck supply used in this case?

FWIW, I like this game, a lot. The ground game is excellent. I'd like to see the other aspects of the game reach that same level.



It is not a cop out answers. Often players that post leave out critical details about a post.

I learned this early as I would spend 1-2 hours trying to find a bug that wasn't there assuming players would give a detailed post.

So now I ask for a lot of details before I go bug hunting. Sometimes it is they didn't read the manual, or understand the UI, or in this case maybe the unit defending is an Italian Mtn Corps with elite specialization which means they are tough to surrender especially in an urban setting with a major port.



squatter -> RE: The Battle of Algiers (12/21/2020 8:05:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cigar King


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlvaroSousa

What was the weather? Which unit was defending?

I will note that after Operation Uranus it took the Soviets 3 months (6 turns) to get the Germans to surrender. I believe they hit 1,000,000 casualties.


This sounds like a cop out. How about addressing issue. How was truck supply used in this case?

FWIW, I like this game, a lot. The ground game is excellent. I'd like to see the other aspects of the game reach that same level.



It is not a cop out answers. Often players that post leave out critical details about a post.

I learned this early as I would spend 1-2 hours trying to find a bug that wasn't there assuming players would give a detailed post.

So now I ask for a lot of details before I go bug hunting. Sometimes it is they didn't read the manual, or understand the UI, or in this case maybe the unit defending is an Italian Mtn Corps with elite specialization which means they are tough to surrender especially in an urban setting with a major port.


I think that's fair enough Alvaro, and understand your approach. Hunting after phantom bugs is something you don't need.

In this instance it was a basic run of the mill Italian 20 strength corps. All my corps were inf. No generals involved.

It was the sequence of results - 10 battles at 3-1 to 6-1 without retreat that made me wonder if this is WAD. It's just I've not seen such a sequence of results occur in any of my other games, hence the post.

As I said, I tested a similar scenario several times at Tripoli in H2H and always got a retreat in the first two or three attacks.

Same type of defender. Same type of attacker. Same entrenchment. Same terrain type (actually Tripoli is 1.3x fort compared to Algiers 1.1x).

If you can assure me that this is just bad luck I'm happy with that.



AlvaroSousa -> RE: The Battle of Algiers (12/21/2020 8:50:21 PM)

You can have a random series of events that seem ridiculous yes. I have seen it in World in Flames.

The Allies end the turn in 1940 and 1941 on the first attempt when they have to roll a 1 to do it and just kill the game for the Axis. Quite frustrating.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.234375