Land combat issue

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Land combat issue

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 >> The War Room >> Land combat issue

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Land combat issue - 12/2/2012 1:23:27 AM

Dora09

Posts: 217
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline

In my current PBEM I am attacking the Allies in a jungle base hex forts are at 1

The battle over this base has been going on for about a month of game time. We are also playing BigBabes C with stacking limits.
We play two day turns.

The first day of the attack is pretty standard:
Japanese AV 861(299 adjusted)
Allies AV 496 (283 adjusted)

I get 1:1 odds on the attack forts are reduced to 0

On the second day things get strange in a bad way for me:
Japanese AV 788(339 adjusted)
Allies AV 424(1030 adjusted!!!?????)

I am very well supplied. The only modifiers on the combat report are: terrain + and preperation - for the Allies, no modifier for the Japanese.

I've been playing this game for a while now and I have not seen a such a boost in defender adjusted AV after an attack. Usually you will get a 1:2 after a 1:1 but that is usually because the attacker's adjusted AV goes down not that the defender is adjusted up.

I just can't figure out how he got that bonus. There are not additional troops and if anything his forts were reduced from 1 to 0.
Am I missing something? Is this common and I have just not been paying close enough attention or is it a bug?

Post #: 1

RE: Land combat issue - 12/2/2012 6:17:40 AM

rms1pa

Posts: 370
Joined: 7/4/2011
Status: offline

1 to 1 is not good. plus FOW on the results ..... ouch

seriously bomb the heck out of them.
bombard until you start getting killed squads and destroyed guns. put non bombarding units on reserve for a bit.
check fatigue/disruption levels of your troops
seriously reinforce untill you see a 3 to 1 AV advantage.
get a good corps HQ in or nearby.
check your leadership of individual units and change the leaders.
find some armour too.

good luck and happy hunting.

rms/pa

_____________________________

there is a technical term for those who confuse the opinions of an author's characters for the opinions of the author.
the term is IDIOT.

(in reply to Dora09)

Post #: 2

RE: Land combat issue - 12/2/2012 2:52:10 PM

Dora09

Posts: 217
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline

Thanks.
We are playing with stacking limits so I physically can not fit any more troops to get 3:1 in numbers alone. I am shuffling in and out fresh and damaged units though.
I have been bombarding by sea. Fatigue and disruption is low. Morale is high. My units are in good shape actually.

The main issue is where did the bonus come from on the second day of the attack? If you notice, my adjusted AV actually increased a little on the second day (up 339 from 299) but his more than doubled (from 383 to 1030). Like I have said, it is typical for an attacker to get lower adjusted AV after an attack but I have never seen a defender get such a swing (they only got half of their base AV on the first attack and then over double their base AV on the second)

In short, I expected 1:1 on the first attack, it is the second day (Allied adjusted AV specifically) that seemed abnormal.

(in reply to rms1pa)

Post #: 3

RE: Land combat issue - 12/2/2012 2:57:46 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

You would have to show us the combat reports. The information you provide is too limited especially about the first attack. There the Allies in excellent terrain actually lost AV which indicates and number of bad things-low supply, disruption, fatigue, op mode and so on. All of these might could be at least partially corrected in one turn. In the second attack, it is apparent that the Allies were in good order, supplied and got the full effect of defending in excellent terrain.

In addition, your 1-1 attack in the first round caused you higher casualties. It is possible that you took disruption and fatigue at a much higher rate than the enemy. Just because you do not see a modifier in the report does not mean that adjustments to these figures did not affect the outcome of the second battle.

Who are you fighting, Chinese, US Marines, tanks? This matters. Does the enemy have more artillery than you? All of these are factors as well. An Allied tank brigade has an AV of about 120. Hit it with a vanilla Japanese infantry division with an AV of 500 and see who loses.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to rms1pa)

Post #: 4

RE: Land combat issue - 12/2/2012 4:53:35 PM

Dora09

Posts: 217
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline

Thanks crsutton

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton

You would have to show us the combat reports. The information you provide is too limited especially about the first attack. There the Allies in excellent terrain actually lost AV which indicates and number of bad things-low supply, disruption, fatigue, op mode and so on. All of these might could be at least partially corrected in one turn.

We are playing two day turns so I am not sure how he would have been able to correct anything between the attack on the first day and on the second as there is no way to issue orders between two consecutive days in one turn (which icludes two days)

Here is the first attack:

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 28772 troops, 243 guns, 90 vehicles, Assault Value = 861

Defending force 21544 troops, 393 guns, 50 vehicles, Assault Value = 496

Japanese adjusted assault: 299

Allied adjusted defense: 283

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 0

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+)
Attacker:

Japanese ground losses:
856 casualties reported
Squads: 9 destroyed, 76 disabled
Non Combat: 0 destroyed, 10 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 4 disabled

Allied ground losses:
1064 casualties reported
Squads: 22 destroyed, 55 disabled
Non Combat: 9 destroyed, 3 disabled
Engineers: 2 destroyed, 24 disabled
Guns lost 38 (2 destroyed, 36 disabled)

Assaulting units:
Kimura Det
56th Infantry Regiment
2nd Tank Regiment
Kure 2nd SNLF
82nd Naval Guard Unit
146th Infantry Regiment
Yokosuka 5th SNLF
Maizuru 4th SNLF
114th Infantry Regiment
65th Brigade
91st Naval Guard Unit

Defending units:
18th British Div /8
58th (Sep) Infantry Regiment
19th Indian Division
3rd Marine/A Div /1
132nd Infantry Regiment
63rd Indian Brigade
48th Gurkha Bde /2
6th Australian Div /4
27th Australian Bde /1
Fort Ord /1

Here is the second:
Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 28061 troops, 243 guns, 90 vehicles, Assault Value = 788

Defending force 20933 troops, 391 guns, 51 vehicles, Assault Value = 424

Japanese adjusted assault: 339

Allied adjusted defense: 1030

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 3 (fort level 0)

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

Japanese ground losses:
1808 casualties reported
Squads: 10 destroyed, 191 disabled
Non Combat: 1 destroyed, 19 disabled
Engineers: 0 destroyed, 1 disabled
Vehicles lost 4 (1 destroyed, 3 disabled)

Allied ground losses:
828 casualties reported
Squads: 32 destroyed, 77 disabled
Non Combat: 4 destroyed, 10 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 6 disabled
Guns lost 21 (2 destroyed, 19 disabled)

Assaulting units:
114th Infantry Regiment
Maizuru 4th SNLF
56th Infantry Regiment
Yokosuka 5th SNLF
65th Brigade
Kure 2nd SNLF
2nd Tank Regiment
82nd Naval Guard Unit
Kimura Det
146th Infantry Regiment
91st Naval Guard Unit

Defending units:
58th (Sep) Infantry Regiment
63rd Indian Brigade
6th Australian Div /4
132nd Infantry Regiment
18th British Div /8
3rd Marine/A Div /1
19th Indian Division
48th Gurkha Bde /2
27th Australian Bde /1
Fort Ord /1

In addition, your 1-1 attack in the first round caused you higher casualties. It is possible that you took disruption and fatigue at a much higher rate than the enemy. Just because you do not see a modifier in the report does not mean that adjustments to these figures did not affect the outcome of the second battle

True, but the issue is not that my adjusted AV went down in the second attack, it was that his went up... massively. I could understand if my adjusted AV went down based on what you said bellow, but his went up with the same units in the hex with no time to make corrections. This is the part that seems strange to me.

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 5

RE: Land combat issue - 12/2/2012 5:41:53 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

You're playing with stacking limits .. so in my opinion frontal assult against equal troops dug in with defensive terrain is going to put troops into the meatgrinder with the only hope of winning is to reinforce/pull out troops into the fray where the enemy cannot. Not a good option. As logn as the enemy can match AV he will hold this hex.

The situation is unknown, but my operational style is to threaten LOC first then engage in the combat portion. You have put yourself into a WWI slugfest that will not turn out as you expect.

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Dora09)

Post #: 6

RE: Land combat issue - 12/2/2012 6:48:57 PM

Dora09

Posts: 217
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline

Thanks Crackaces.

This is an island base. So can't cut him off by land. There is a big naval and air struggle to go along with this as well aimed at limiting supply by air and sea. That being said, the real question I would like insight into is the massive bumb he got the following day when nothing (from what I can tell) changed, if anything he was weaker.

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 7

RE: Land combat issue - 12/2/2012 6:50:59 PM

Dora09

Posts: 217
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline

By massive bumb, I mean massive bump.

(in reply to Dora09)

Post #: 8

RE: Land combat issue - 12/2/2012 7:12:56 PM

Dan Nichols

Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline

I think the thing that is missing here is that this a very complex game. Watch a combat replay and you see that a lot of actions happen. Every one of those has at least one die roll for randomness. My feeling is that either the second combat the defender was lucky and received a number of favorable die rolls or in the first one he received a number of unfavorable ones. In combat stuff happens and the random die rolls are there to represent that.

(in reply to Dora09)

Post #: 9

RE: Land combat issue - 12/2/2012 7:16:25 PM

msieving1

Posts: 526
Joined: 3/23/2007
From: Missouri
Status: offline

quote:

the real question I would like insight into is the massive bumb he got the following day when nothing (from what I can tell) changed, if anything he was weaker.

Roll of the dice. There are large random factors in the algorithms.

(in reply to Dora09)

Post #: 10

RE: Land combat issue - 12/2/2012 11:14:41 PM

rms1pa

Posts: 370
Joined: 7/4/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: msieving1

quote:

the real question I would like insight into is the massive bumb he got the following day when nothing (from what I can tell) changed, if anything he was weaker.

Roll of the dice. There are large random factors in the algorithms.

and/or some of the troops present were not in combat mode on the first attack, best "explenation" for the "bumb" i can think of.

rms/pa

_____________________________

there is a technical term for those who confuse the opinions of an author's characters for the opinions of the author.
the term is IDIOT.

(in reply to msieving1)

Post #: 11

RE: Land combat issue - 12/2/2012 11:34:43 PM

Oldguard1970

Posts: 578
Joined: 7/19/2006
From: Hiawassee, GA
Status: offline

Does Fog Of War intrude here? Do the combat reports give an accurate indication of original AV and modified AV?

_____________________________

"Rangers Lead the Way!"

(in reply to rms1pa)

Post #: 12

RE: Land combat issue - 12/3/2012 8:23:52 PM

wfaherty

Posts: 16
Joined: 10/27/2012
Status: offline

If he had several units in reserve then when you attacked, the reserve units switched status from reserve to combat adding each unit's av to the total av thus increasing his av for that battle.

(in reply to Oldguard1970)

Post #: 13

RE: Land combat issue - 12/3/2012 10:58:23 PM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Could also be that he was short of supply the first day and that supply flowed into the hex by the next day's attack. For his AV to actually reduce itself below the stated AV when in good terrain suggests that supply was the issue. But we won't know.

Also, note that he has much superior units than yours in that they are well balanced brigades and divisions while a lot of your units are weak in artillery and support. (ie:naval guard and SNLF) forces. He not only has many more guns but they are probably larger caliber. Given an equal attack his artillery support is going to cause much more disruption to you during each combat.

But all in all his AV in the second attack is more the norm that you would expect which leads me to think that he was short of supply during the first. Or as some mentioned some units were in the wrong OP mode or in reserve.

Anyways, you are going to need better and more troops to defeat that stack of his.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to wfaherty)

Post #: 14

RE: Land combat issue - 12/4/2012 4:08:31 PM

Dora09

Posts: 217
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline

Thanks crsutton and everyone else.

I have been trying to cut off supply as much as possible.
Actually, I thought my units there were pretty good considering the stacking limit. I also control the other hex on this two hex island where he only controls the contested hex so I have the luxury of swapping units in and out of combat by land where is he has to bring them in by sea. My attacks have been pretty successful until this last turn I presented. In subsequent turns he has brought in more troops which probably accounts for this boost. I am surprised that he could bring in more since I thought he was already at the stacking limit. I have lots of other units I could bring in but I am afraid to exceed the stacking limit (I did that once accidentally and it was disastrous for supply)

(in reply to crsutton)

Post #: 15

RE: Land combat issue - 12/5/2012 1:38:01 AM

crsutton

Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

Just remember that devices are just as important as AV. Support as well. Your average Allied unit by 1943 has enough organic support but Japanese units never seem to have enough and need HQ to keep support in the white.

The AV of your basic Allied Division does not change much during the game but they under go impressive upgrades in devices such as artillery and MMG squads. Basic firepower of their squads increase, and the inherent AT value of the squads takes a very impressive jump. An experienced Japanese tank unit will run over Allied units in 1942 but by 1943 will just break apart due to the increased AT values of the infantry squads.

SNLF squads for example are usually high morale and experience but really do not have much heavy equipment. Basically after 1943 the Japanese army was incapable of offensive action against a dug in Allied combat unit except the Chinese. The game reflects this pretty well.
Devices matter.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Dora09)

Post #: 16

RE: Land combat issue - 12/5/2012 1:34:02 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dora09

Thanks Crackaces.

This is an island base. So can't cut him off by land. There is a big naval and air struggle to go along with this as well aimed at limiting supply by air and sea. That being said, the real question I would like insight into is the massive bumb he got the following day when nothing (from what I can tell) changed, if anything he was weaker.

Ya you're right then it is a matter of isolating the base via naval/air interdiction. This is easier in my opinion

You don't have to use a magnifying glass to find Roads, trails, and railroads to isolate the unit. [saying that one does not have all the inner-doors closed in the hex]. Sometimes it is better to have that struggle before engaging. That is get the supply down before attacking/engaging. Flak is a good indicator of supply.

One problem with my suggested operational methodology is that it transmitts intellgence that the island is a possible target and some sort of deception is required which leads to a more complex plan .....etc.

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Dora09)

Post #: 17

RE: Land combat issue - 12/5/2012 1:42:41 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dora09

Thanks crsutton and everyone else.

I have been trying to cut off supply as much as possible.
Actually, I thought my units there were pretty good considering the stacking limit. I also control the other hex on this two hex island where he only controls the contested hex so I have the luxury of swapping units in and out of combat by land where is he has to bring them in by sea. My attacks have been pretty successful until this last turn I presented. In subsequent turns he has brought in more troops which probably accounts for this boost. I am surprised that he could bring in more since I thought he was already at the stacking limit. I have lots of other units I could bring in but I am afraid to exceed the stacking limit (I did that once accidentally and it was disastrous for supply)

Sometimes a short term overstacking situation is needed to get enough AV to take the target down. Just bring in lots of supply before hand during the landing of the troops. As CrSutton stated firepower dicates the battle -- AV dicatates whether the battle ends -- especially on an island/atoll. [I just had this situaiton on Wake Island. The initial landing forces the 7th infantry divsion took 100% disruption on the landing and only had 6 squads not disabled after the shock. Already overstacked thinking a division was enough -- the reserves had to land because no way could I get that division off alive unless more troops landed. 100K of supply, 4 Tank Rgts, and a marine engineer rgt carried the day. It took a month to get everybody off the lvl port 1 atoll. It can be done at a cost.]

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Dora09)

Post #: 18

RE: Land combat issue - 12/5/2012 3:34:37 PM

Dora09

Posts: 217
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline

Thanks so much guys.
I admit even though I have been playing this game since 2007 I still have a lot to learn.
Also, I play a little more conservative than a lot of Japanese players (To be honest I would rather lose and have the game go into 1946 than win by 43). That isn't to say I don't try my best to win every engagement but I know there it is highly unlikely that I will "win" given my play style.

Also, I would say that land combat is not one of my strengths. That being said, since I started this thread, I have used more attacks and the numbers for the defender have come back to normal (he is trying to shuffle in and out units by sea) so it must have been a die roll. As I mentioned he is trying to shuffle in new troops and out weakend troops, I managed to sink a few APs with troops with a surface combat raid with CAs.

Thanks again for all of your help

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 19

RE: Land combat issue - 12/5/2012 4:50:08 PM

Crackaces

Posts: 3858
Joined: 7/9/2011
Status: offline

quote:

Also, I play a little more conservative than a lot of Japanese players (To be honest I would rather lose and have the game go into 1946

Actually in my opinion, I think that is the goal of the game. Autovictory for the IJ is like the mythical fountian of youth. IJ players that seek AV simply have the game come to a conclusion early when the realize they did not plan for the long run. In reading AAR's I find very rarely games go to the 1946 point.

I have two PBEM games. My first one ended early in Aug 1943 as the IJ did not plan for "Operation Extended Captial" in 1942. My second, and current game, might end in an Allied Autovictory in 1944 .. it will be close. But at least the IJ is hanging in there with scenario #1, though they did not plan where to draw the defensive line, and simply started a defense when disaster occured ... that does not work in this game.

I hope yours lasts until 1946!

_____________________________

"What gets us into trouble is not what we don't know. It's what we know for sure that just ain't so"

(in reply to Dora09)

Post #: 20

RE: Land combat issue - 12/5/2012 7:59:29 PM

Dora09

Posts: 217
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline

Hello Crackaces.
I read a fair amount of AARs too and I know it is almost impossible to get to 46. Part of the battle is finding a good opponent that you know is in it for the long haul. Luckily for me, I have that. I have been playing with the same guy for years now after getting burned with my first opponent and he is a great player and wonderful guy so I am lucky in that regard. Sadly, I don't think I am a good enough player to get to 46. This is a tough game to master and as the Japanese you have very little room for error. In our games we have always got deep into 43 and most have gone well into 44 (I think we had one that went into 45).

Your comment about Japan transitioning from offense to defense is an important one and I must confess that I struggle with that at times. I feel that I have finally become much better managing the economy and I have always felt confident on a tactical level but I need to get better strategically and operationally. Being that this is an operational game that is very important!

But it is so much fun. I play a far share of war games but this one is hands down the best.

Take care and I will let you know if we get to 46! We are at Dec 42 right now.

(in reply to Crackaces)

Post #: 21

RE: Land combat issue - 12/9/2012 2:55:07 AM

khyberbill

Posts: 1941
Joined: 9/11/2007
From: new milford, ct
Status: offline

If you keep sinking my BB's that I leave out unprotected you will make it to 46! I dont recall the particular battle but as you know I am easily distracted and not always paying attention. What game date was the battle and I will look on my end and see if it was FOW-? There was one day when I was mildly overstacked (3rd Marine/B Div /1 arriving) a few game days ago but it should not have given me a surge like that (more like 100AV).

I am pleased to do a little propagandizing now. The base is well supplied-in fact units are drawing replacements-I bet you would like to know how I am supplying the base since you havent seen a cargo shipment there in months. Morale is high and disruption is not too bad-probably due to a fresh shipment of Shlitz beer to the troops. The ice machine is working and everyone has fresh ice cream due to the abundance of local water buffaloes. Since this particular battle another Marine regiment has been added to the stack. An army regiment is resting one hex away and is preparing to rotate in while I rotate another regiment out. And I will be adding another army regiment to that relief hex. In a few days the first Marine corsairs will arrive. Life is good.

_____________________________

"Its a dog eat dog world Sammy and I am wearing Milkbone underwear" -Norm.

(in reply to Dora09)

Post #: 22

RE: Land combat issue - 12/10/2012 3:50:07 PM

Dora09

Posts: 217
Joined: 1/11/2008
Status: offline

Hello Khyberbill!

I figure you are supplying by air lift and sub. I was trying to keep the airfield damaged and the port damaged by bombardment but obviously that isn't working

Oh, how I do love some classic Khyberbill propaganda!

(in reply to khyberbill)

Post #: 23