Bataan

[herwin]

In my current PBEM, Bataan--with its historical garrison--fell after two deliberate attacks four months early. Now please explain to me how the ground combat model isn't broken?

[Bullwinkle58]

ORIGINAL: herwin

In my current PBEM, Bataan--with its historical garrison--fell after two deliberate attacks four months early. Now please explain to me how the ground combat model isn't broken?

Were the attackers historical? Was supply historical? Was leadership historical? Were fort levels historical?

[Puhis]

Harry, your AAR is missing lot of info, for example units participating the battle... [8|]

[USSAmerica]

ORIGINAL: herwin

In my current PBEM, Bataan--with its historical garrison--fell after two deliberate attacks four months early. Now please explain to me how the ground combat model isn't broken?

Nope! Not going to let you pull that! If you have a problem, explain how you think the ground combat model IS broken, and back it up with facts from the game, not from one tiny historical factor when thousands of factors affect the outcome, in history and in the game. [8|]

This type of complaining post reeks of "I didn't sink 6 BB's at Pearl. The game is borked!" We've heard this record many times before, Harry, and really don't want to listen to it again.

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: herwin

In my current PBEM, Bataan--with its historical garrison--fell after two deliberate attacks four months early. Now please explain to me how the ground combat model isn't broken?

Harry, other than venting your frustration with it, this thread serves no productive purpose. It certainly can be counter-productive. No need to see who can pee the furthest.

As you have pointed out elsewhere, the system is good enough that it can be worked with. It's well known that in this system (AE) Clark Field is the better place to defend. For all I know maybe it would have been a better place to defend in real life, too. Still won't get until April or May if the opponent chooses to bring enough troops.

[vicberg]

I can tell you that in my game with Witpqs, it was mid-march, I had 6 divs! on clark and couldn't even achieve a 1-1.  Without a major redeploy of troops to clark it was going to be minimum one month, probably two before it fell.  I also had another 4 on Singapore and couldn't achieve a 1-1.  Attacking at either place caused high disruption and fatigue because of a lack of ground support, so one attack per week is what I was averaging.  That wasn't going to get it done.
 
The over-dispursement of troops was my fault and my lack of understand about the ground game mechanics. 
Witpqs stacked everything but a few garrisons in Manilla and Bataan and started a fort building program that I couldn't stop in spite of daily airfield attacks.  He pulled everything from Malaysia into Singapore and started fort building there as well.  While this was going on, he pulled everything from sumatra into palembang and created a 1000 AV, level 6 fortification monster in the swamp.  This was going on while I was pre-occupied with singapore.  
 
It's a brutal form of defense for the japanese to face and forces a major rethinking at the start and completely took any initiative away from me.  In our current game, I've probably taken the rethinking too far from a "gamey" concept (though we have very few house rules)...even with a non-"gamey" start, it requires planning accross the SRA to prevent stackups. Early attacks on mersing, palembang and multiple luzon invasions to hit retreating allied troops and dispurse them away from clark.  
 
In other words, this scenario slows down attacks.  I can vouch for that.  Now, if I had focused the majority of divs on any one spot, I would have taken that spot.  That was my mistake. 
 
 

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

ORIGINAL: herwin

In my current PBEM, Bataan--with its historical garrison--fell after two deliberate attacks four months early. Now please explain to me how the ground combat model isn't broken?

Were the attackers historical? Was supply historical? Was leadership historical? Were fort levels historical?

Attackers were as follows:

Assaulting units:
38th Division
21st Division
2nd Engineer Regiment
2nd Recon Regiment
48th Recon Regiment
4th Division
1st Formosa Inf. Regiment
47th Infantry Regiment
33rd Division
24th Infantry Regiment
4th Tank Regiment
20th Ind Engineer Regiment
16th Infantry Regiment
65th Brigade
2nd Formosa Inf. Regiment
48th Engineer Regiment
6th Tank Regiment
7th Tank Regiment
14th Army
9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
8th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
19th Ind Engineer Regiment
15th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
2nd Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion

Supply was a problem. The force in Bataan burned through 6500+ tons of supply in 15 days.

Leadership was better than historical. I lost MacArthur defending Manila and had replaced Wainwright with someone more competent.

I had been building forts on Bataan as intensively as possible. They reached level 3 before the Japanese arrived.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Harry, your AAR is missing lot of info, for example units participating the battle... [8|]

Here are the two sides:

Assaulting units:
38th Division
21st Division
2nd Engineer Regiment
2nd Recon Regiment
48th Recon Regiment
4th Division
1st Formosa Inf. Regiment
47th Infantry Regiment
33rd Division
24th Infantry Regiment
4th Tank Regiment
20th Ind Engineer Regiment
16th Infantry Regiment
65th Brigade
2nd Formosa Inf. Regiment
48th Engineer Regiment
6th Tank Regiment
7th Tank Regiment
14th Army
9th Ind.Hvy.Art. Battalion
8th Medium Field Artillery Regiment
19th Ind Engineer Regiment
15th Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion
2nd Ind.Art.Mortar Battalion

Defending units:
45th PS Infantry Regimental Combat Team
4th Marine Regiment
26th PS Cavalry Regiment
31st Infantry Regiment
14th PS Engineer Regiment
21st PA Infantry Division
57th PS Infantry Regimental Combat Team
Manila Bay Defenses
41st PA Infantry Division
3rd/12th PA Inf Battalion
2nd PA Constabulary Division
201st PA Construction Battalion
Bataan USN Base Force
200th & 515th Coast AA Regiment
88th PS Field Artillery Regiment
I Philippine Corps
202nd PA Construction Battalion
Clark Field AAF Base Force
803rd Aviation Engineer Battalion
PAF Aviation
Provisional GMC Grp
1st USMC AA Battalion
Far East USAAF
Asiatic Fleet
301st PA Field Artillery Regiment

[US87891]

I have been asked to aid in development of a game scenario in which the Bataan defense is an element. I would find it useful if you would list the primary combat units for each side, at regimental echelon or above, participating in your attacks and their respective levels of disruption, fatigue and disablement.

I do not reply to private communications. An open post is preferable so that other knowledgeable players may comment on the game’s handling of the various levels. Thank you.

Mathias

[vicberg]

So 6 divs plus a brigade.  The next question is was he able to hit the defenders piecemeal?  How much was in Manilla when it fell?  How much was in clark?  6 divs is a major committment...I wasn't able to do it before the stacking in clark occurred.  So Wiptqs forces were pretty much undamaged by the time they made it to clark.  If he was able to hit manilla and clark in a piecemeal fasion then the troops in bataan would have been pretty depleted, especially with 6 divs attacking them. 

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: USS America

ORIGINAL: herwin

In my current PBEM, Bataan--with its historical garrison--fell after two deliberate attacks four months early. Now please explain to me how the ground combat model isn't broken?

Nope! Not going to let you pull that! If you have a problem, explain how you think the ground combat model IS broken, and back it up with facts from the game, not from one tiny historical factor when thousands of factors affect the outcome, in history and in the game. [8|]

This type of complaining post reeks of "I didn't sink 6 BB's at Pearl. The game is borked!" We've heard this record many times before, Harry, and really don't want to listen to it again.

The casualty model assumes time to kill dominates time to acquire, which is seriously ahistorical--the casualty fraction distribution produced by the game has almost no overlap with historical WWII casualty fraction data. The battle resolution model assumes that the side with the majority of effectives wins after the firepower duel, while historically (about 95% of the time) lower casualty percentage won. The tempo is about 17 times as fast as historical (a 4 month instead of a one week siege). Supply usage is three times historical. I can deal with the first three, but the last means that no unit under siege can hold out. I have a corps slice in Singapore (600 tons/day historical supply usage). I have 54000 tons of supply dumped there--I expected to be able to last out a 3 month siege. Based on what I see in the Bataan data, I won't last more than four weeks.

[bradfordkay]

Harry, in this case the problem is with the terrain in the Bataan hex. It is unsuitable terrain for a last ditch resistance... everybody has recognized that your main line of defense has to be Clark Field, which got the terrain that most expect should have been given to Bataan. 

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: witpqs

ORIGINAL: herwin

In my current PBEM, Bataan--with its historical garrison--fell after two deliberate attacks four months early. Now please explain to me how the ground combat model isn't broken?

Harry, other than venting your frustration with it, this thread serves no productive purpose. It certainly can be counter-productive. No need to see who can pee the furthest.

As you have pointed out elsewhere, the system is good enough that it can be worked with. It's well known that in this system (AE) Clark Field is the better place to defend. For all I know maybe it would have been a better place to defend in real life, too. Still won't get until April or May if the opponent chooses to bring enough troops.

Defense of Clark Field:

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 23265 troops, 167 guns, 265 vehicles, Assault Value = 734

Defending force 9075 troops, 187 guns, 147 vehicles, Assault Value = 287

Japanese adjusted assault: 542

Allied adjusted defense: 406

Japanese assault odds: 1 to 1 (fort level 2)

Japanese Assault reduces fortifications to 1

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
1007 casualties reported
Squads: 3 destroyed, 73 disabled
Non Combat: 6 destroyed, 114 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 14 disabled
Vehicles lost 77 (7 destroyed, 70 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
467 casualties reported
Squads: 9 destroyed, 33 disabled
Non Combat: 2 destroyed, 68 disabled
Engineers: 1 destroyed, 15 disabled

Ground combat at Clark Field (79,76)

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 50919 troops, 381 guns, 282 vehicles, Assault Value = 1592

Defending force 8325 troops, 184 guns, 147 vehicles, Assault Value = 231

Japanese adjusted assault: 1447

Allied adjusted defense: 481

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

Japanese forces CAPTURE Clark Field !!!

Combat modifiers
Defender: terrain(+), fatigue(-), experience(-)
Attacker: shock(+)

Japanese ground losses:
2144 casualties reported
Squads: 11 destroyed, 89 disabled
Non Combat: 6 destroyed, 90 disabled
Engineers: 7 destroyed, 37 disabled
Vehicles lost 13 (2 destroyed, 11 disabled)


Allied ground losses:
3642 casualties reported
Squads: 40 destroyed, 19 disabled
Non Combat: 227 destroyed, 22 disabled
Engineers: 53 destroyed, 0 disabled
Guns lost 83 (82 destroyed, 1 disabled)
Vehicles lost 68 (68 destroyed, 0 disabled)
Units retreated 8
Units destroyed 1

I had been planning to have my last stand on Bataan, so everything planning for Bataan went there immediately and the remainder were to perform a fighting retreat on historical lines. I had the supply draw turned up as well to move as much there as possible. (Clearly, based on the usage figures I saw, I needed 180,000 tons of supply dumped there to match MacArthur's performance. He ended up with 80,000 troops and 26,000 civilians in the perimeter.) The Japanese advance in the PBEM moved so fast that many of the units moving to Bataan were overrun and destroyed en-route, but that should have reduced the supply requirements.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

So 6 divs plus a brigade.  The next question is was he able to hit the defenders piecemeal?  How much was in Manilla when it fell?  How much was in clark?  6 divs is a major committment...I wasn't able to do it before the stacking in clark occurred.  So Wiptqs forces were pretty much undamaged by the time they made it to clark.  If he was able to hit manilla and clark in a piecemeal fasion then the troops in bataan would have been pretty depleted, especially with 6 divs attacking them. 

To do that, he has to start everyone moving on the first turn (or before). My opponent likes to land at Mauban, which cuts off the southern Luzon forces and prevents more than a turn or two's supply movement out of Manila. He was advancing about a hex every couple of days, and pursuit had a slingshot effect.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay

Harry, in this case the problem is with the terrain in the Bataan hex. It is unsuitable terrain for a last ditch resistance... everybody has recognized that your main line of defense has to be Clark Field, which got the terrain that most expect should have been given to Bataan. 

That's a bit of a surprise. Historically, Bataan was much more suitable. Learn something new every day.

[Puhis]

I'm confused. I'm not an expert of Battle of Bataan, but you said you had about 25000 men (and maybe some destroyed units?). But your link says there was about 80000 troops IRL, and Japanese took about 75000 POWs.

And obviously your opponent had more troops (about 7 divisions and 3 tank regiments) than Japan historically had.

So why all this whining? [&:]

[vicberg]

FYI...Witpqs had 2600 adjusted AV on clark when I started attacking.  Even with 6 Divs plus the 65th brigade, I didn't have 2600 AV, even after removing the forts (which we are level 4 and then dropped to level 0), I was so disrupted that subsequent attacks still didn't achieve a 1-1.  Based on above, the figthing retreat plus bataan terrain was the culprit. 
 
By the time disruption for me came down to attackable numbers, he got his forts back up.  Many engineers, I would guess, that were able to build forts in spite of the airfield attacks (and I would switch sometimes to port attacks...seemed too many airfield attacks would eventually not hit the air supply, so port attacks would).
 
Remember that it's still basically a board game (I owned the original back in 82)...they've taken the mechanics far beyond the original, but the combat model is still an odds based combat model, modified by quite a few factors...roll the dice, determine the results. 
 
 

[witpqs]

ORIGINAL: vicberg

FYI...Witpqs had 2600 adjusted AV on clark when I started attacking.  Even with 6 Divs plus the 65th brigade, I didn't have 2600 AV, even after removing the forts (which we are level 4 and then dropped to level 0), I was so disrupted that subsequent attacks still didn't achieve a 1-1.  Based on above, the figthing retreat plus bataan terrain was the culprit. 

By the time disruption for me came down to attackable numbers, he got his forts back up.  Many engineers, I would guess, that were able to build forts in spite of the airfield attacks (and I would switch sometimes to port attacks...seemed too many airfield attacks would eventually not hit the air supply, so port attacks would).

Remember that it's still basically a board game (I owned the original back in 82)...they've taken the mechanics far beyond the original, but the combat model is still an odds based combat model, modified by quite a few factors...roll the dice, determine the results. 

Whenever you attacked something other than the airfield, repairs were completed and they were able to build forts. Port attacks seem to do much less damage than AF (don't know why). Ground attack of course would let them build.

Forget exactly, but maybe assault strength was down to 1,200 or even lower. Supplies were ~10,000 and really only fell below that when you took Manila and stopped supply production there. It was just a matter of time.

[herwin]

ORIGINAL: Puhis

I'm confused. I'm not an expert of Battle of Bataan, but you said you had about 25000 men (and maybe some destroyed units?). But your link says there was about 80000 troops IRL, and Japanese took about 75000 POWs.

And obviously your opponent had more troops (about 7 divisions and 3 tank regiments) than Japan historically had.

So why all this whining? [&:]

Yeah, the tank regiments led the advance, which meant that my moving units were unable to get out of their base hexes before they were overrun. I lost four divisions that way--two south of Manila, one in San Fernando, and one in Iba. The division in San Fernando was overrun and destroyed two days after the initial landing. And the problems with the combat model means that a rear guard is cut to ribbons, so you can't hold the enemy with part of your force and pull out the rest. You just have to hope the enemy's inevitable shock attack leaves you with someone surviving.

But, more seriously, the supply model has a problem. Usage is several times historical, which means it doesn't matter that you can handle the problems with the combat model, you're going to starve anyway. My garrison in Bataan was completely out of supply about five days before the end, and that's having turned up the supply draw there at the beginning of the game. If I had gotten 80,000 troops into Bataan, I would have lasted about four days.

Luzon starts with 63000 supply. That's only enough to feed everyone for no more than a month--which is how long this campaign lasted.

[Bliztk]

I had been attacking the Clark AAF since 15 December to prevent fort building here. I think I killed two divisions of PA at Mauban and another two or three at Lingayen-Manila, so at least 5 divisions of PA units plus several minor one were wiped out.

Then for the last two attacks I reinforced via Iba with three divisions more worth of troops

I think that the problem here is that historically the Japanese command left Bataan with screening units to move the main army to another targets. I prefer to smash the targets one on one, to minimize the risks