RE: land warfare not working anywhere near historical...

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: land warfare not working anywhere near historical...

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: land warfare not working anywhere near historical...

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: land warfare not working anywhere near historical... - 8/31/2004 3:53:22 AM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

AMEN Eliminate pursuit. and make the units actually spend the time needed to march
"into" each hex. Even if they continue to get a "free jump to combat" on entering so
they can attack..., they shouldn't be alowed to leave the hex until they have marched
the full 60 miles. Movement takes time..., and the game should reflect it.

If you eliminate pursue, then eliminate the ability of retreating units moving an entire hex.. They can't move any faster than those that pursue them. Well at least not THAT much faster.

Xargun

This is a real tough one to model in a game. In this game, you can have an attacking unit just enter the hex from one side, and the defending unit can be 59 miles on the other side of the hex, but for combat purposes the two will engage as if right next to one another. Or in a combat where one unit retreats, it magically just "warps" 60 miles away in an instant! This is all very tough to model in a wargame and why it almost always works the way it does in this game.

The only other way I could conceptually conceive to model land combat was to place units in a particular "mode" similar to the defensive, bombardment, deliberate, shock attack modes. Maybe add retreat, shattered, and surrender modes as well. In retreat mode units will not fire back (or fire back as much) when fired on, i.e. they will inflice no enemy casualties in combat, but at least they don't "warp" out of hex. Maybe a "Fighting Retreat" mode and a general Retreat mode. Alternatively they can "shatter" which is basically a ROUTE where units completely disorganize and personnel escape but they do so individually into the countryside. And of course they can surrender. The difference between shattering and surrendering is shattered troops are not lost, they go back into the manpower pool to be reconstituted into future units.

Lots of good ideas, ZOOMIE, but only for a game still being designed. We need something
that can be wedged into the existing code with as little effort as possible if we expect to
see it implemented. Bouncing a losing defender back a hex with high fatigue is probably
a good compromise. Might be even better is the degree of disorganization/fatigue was
dependent on the "movement cost" to leap to the next hex. Then about the time the
attacker can walk to the next hex, the former defender has recovered enough to fight or
run away again. The most important point here is that if an attacker is trying to move
180 miles down a trail. it should take him MORE TIME if it's defended than if it isn't. In
the game now, it's just the opposite. Where it might take him 45-60 days to walk down
a trail, if he has a sizable superiority in strength he can "pursue" down it in 3 days! That's
just plain WRONG! Not to mention ahistoric, rediculous, and just plain stupid.

_____________________________

(in reply to ZOOMIE1980)

Post #: 31

RE: land warfare not working anywhere near historical... - 8/31/2004 5:06:47 AM

mogami

Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline

Hi, Once again many players fail to understand the compromise the programers/designers had to make. If a unit retreats 60 miles then a unit ordered to maintain contact and pursue must move 60 miles as well. What disorganized tired troops on foot can do, organized mechanized forces must do. There is a danger that is often overlooked. The prusing forces are often small tank units. If the retreating enemy force retreats onto fresh units the pursuit can result in a defeat.
Units should not retreat an entire 60 miles but then they would still be in the hex and exposed to another attack. (no doubt this time it would be a shock attack)
To pursue or not must be decided prior to the attack. The attacker is never certain how far his advance will go. ( I see mine chase the enemy up to 30 miles. I've never actually began the following turn in the hex the enemy retreated into but then I've moved there the next day. I don't see how we can say one unit can move 60 miles but deny the other side can as well. It is simply a result of the map scale. If we had 10 mile hexes the pursuit would always be on top of the retreating unit.
Maybe rather then retreat the unit we should have it move but limit how far it goes so that the attacker is able to continue to attack. The retreating unit would lose more and unless it was able to break contact it would eventually fall apart (surrender or shatter)

_____________________________

I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 32

RE: land warfare not working anywhere near historical... - 8/31/2004 5:51:56 AM

tabpub

Posts: 1019
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area
Status: offline

I personally haven't yet seen any "super pursuits" as described. According to the manual, this should not happen. I.E.

You can toggle on/off the option Pursue Enemy and Do Not Pursue Enemy. If toggled on and
during an attack, and the unit forces a retreat of all enemy ground units, the attacking unit will
march toward the hex the enemy retreated to and should automatically move 15 miles toward that
objective unless it is an armored unit in which case it moves 30 miles.
pg. 153

So, if a defender is "kicked" entirely out of the hex, then no unit should be right on top of them to start the next day. According to this...I guess the question is..is this what is actually happening?

(in reply to mogami)

Post #: 33

RE: land warfare not working anywhere near historical... - 9/2/2004 7:52:13 PM

Caranorn

Posts: 424
Joined: 8/31/2001
From: Luxembourg
Status: offline

Thought I'd update my findings from my current game.

Hong Kong fell within 3 days this time, which is plain ridiculous. Some time I will split the HK forces in the editor into 4 (Hong Kong Brigade, Kowloon Brigade, Hong Kong Fortress (CD) and the base force to see whether spreading forces between units might not improve things (but that's unlikely)). In any case, this frees 38 Japanese Division up much too soon (haven't seen her in action elsewhere yet, but I bet it won't take long).

In the Malay campaign:

1) The Japanese IG Division arrived roughly on time on the Malay border (same day as it's forward elements historically did). But that was only because I decided to sacrifice the Victoria Point base force and thereby delay the Japanese advance by three days. So march rates are indeed too high.

2) On the Malay border, my defensive position held until december 23, first against the Japanese 5th Division, then IG and 5th. I only achieved this by concentrating a complete Indian division on the border (3 brigades). In historic terms that would have meant giving up part of the strategic reserve. As it is, this situation appears pretty realistic, but represents a much more agressive (other then the initial Indian attack towards the Siamese ports) stance for the allies then historic.

3)At Khota Baru my defense is still holding on december 25. But that is playing scenario 16 where the initial landings in (that area are from Japanese 4th Mixed Regiment only (historic, though I'm not sure the actual regiment was 4th). I even managed to pull out the Indian brigade from Khota Baru and leave the defense to the garrison brigade (which oddly is better quality).

4) In the meantime, the various base forces are preparing defensive positions closer to Singapore (2 positions before Singapore on the rail approach, one on the coast for a total of 4 (4th is Kuala Lumpur which I won't fortify anymore) defensive lines planned before Singapore proper).

5) I still have no idea how long I can maintain this defense against the ai, against a human player it would probably be tougher as I would have to keep more forces in reserve to counter possible secondary landings (cutting off Khota Baru's retreat for instance). A human player would also have noticed my gradual withdrawal from Khota Baru (partial brigades identified as /A and /B).

In the Phillipines things have been going similarly:

1) In Northern Luzon the Phillipine Scouts assisted by one Phillipine Army Division have been fighting delaying actions. A First Japanese Tank Regiment caght a blody nose when it pursuied right onto Clark Field (into the two US light tank battlions, artillery, a PS regiment and a PA division). On the 25th the Japs are still busy cleaning out Tuguegarao (has fallen but the PA division I ordered to delay there is slowly falling back in the wrong direction with a japanese force in full pursuit).

2) The South Luzon force is firmly dug in at Naga with one PA division and the single US Army regiment (the USMC regiment also took part in that fight but got seriously disrupted playing coast guns I believe). I expect this position will hold a few more days and the Marines might be ready to fight anotehr delaying action half way to Manilla at that point.

3) The Mindanao force has taken a beating as was to be expected, Davao and one other base hav fallen. The heroes of this action are two base forces who have beaten back an SNLF or NLF and repaired all the damaged B17s at their base. I expect Mindanao wll fall before the end of the month.

In Burma the Japanese have started the assault on Rangoon (only two brigades defending, 1st Burma is being evacuated (with two AK in flames) by sea after a short delaying action, 2nd Burma is just reaching it's defensive positions NE of Rangoon after several days marching on the Japanese LOC (apparently they don't need supply) with the japanese 33rd Division a day's march behind them). Despite the valiant work of the lone English fighter squadron (flying daily ground attack) and the Flying Tigers (2 squadrons at Rangoon while the 3rd is converting to P40E in India) I fear the town cannot hold more then a few days.

All of this was greatly helped by extremely agressive naval actions (US squadron off Mindanao butchering the Japanese 56th brigade's convoy, Dutch Squadron helping out as much as it's range permits, British cruisers and destroyers (even revenge dared a quick run) shelling the japanese flank in Burma (destroying numerous A6M2s and Betties at Akyab) etc. (also an ANZAC squadron tearing the rabaul invasion to shreds but missing action in the Gilberts by a day). Air intervention is only slightly less agressive (one squadron of LB30s are operating from Singapore now a second to arrive as soon as they convert from B17E and to be followed by B17's and P40's (both from the Phillipines) as soon as possible).

In conclusion, with a much more agressive (then historical) Allied stance Malaya seems to be somewhat defensible (close to historic), the Phillipines on the other hand seem to be a tough nut (I planned to reinforce Luzon or at least resupply it, right now I ain't so certain), Burma (South) seems to be impossible to even fight a delaying action in. I never thought I'd be able to stop the ai, but I was hoping to be able to be better at delaying it (by the way, the ai has acted extremely stupidly at sea, the Khota Baru bombardment force has apparently laid anchor off that base, no cruisers are protecting invasion forces (they all seem to escort the two CVL's (or spend the war at Khota Baru as previously mentionned)), convoys are trying to run through the mined (no effect it seems, but the remaining Vildebeests are having a good time) straits off Singapore etc.

So I will correct my original position. Land Combat is indeed broken, but not quite as badly as I thought. Movement on rail and road definitelly is too fast (as I also noticed with my own forces apparently racing from Georgetown (after retreating from the Malay border) to my second defensive line within two days (2 hexes (or the 4th USMC Rgt. racing to Manilla to rest the day I ordered them to withdraw from Naga)).

In the end, the game seems to be playable even on the eastern half of the map, but it's quite a bit off from history. I will post again once I've played this game a few more days.

Marc aka Caran...

P.S.: I forgot to mention US PT boats off Luzon (3 lost in action, one ran on a mine, one was destroyed while closing up with machine guns against a Japanese gunboat and the third met 4 heavy cruisers and a CVL) and 4 valliant US flush deckers like wise operating off Luzon (4 more after action with the cruisers have taken up supply runs for the bombers at Jolo).

P.P.S.: Pursuit doesn't seem to be as big a problem s I first thought. The only case of instant pursuit I noticed was the Japanese kamikaze tanks (the combat reports are of course off, but they did list some 30 tanks lost) at Clark Field.

(in reply to tabpub)

Post #: 34

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> RE: land warfare not working anywhere near historical...

Page: << < prev 1 [2]