Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Snowballing through defence with stacking limits

 
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 >> Snowballing through defence with stacking limits Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/3/2015 8:05:08 PM   
GetAssista

 

Posts: 937
Joined: 9/19/2009
Status: offline
What is the snowball - when first layer of defence is broken retreating troops overstack next hex of defence, increasing disruption and bombing effects, burning supply and generally making life easier for the attacker. In fact easier to the point of defender not being able to hold prepared positions in 3x terrain long enough to let shattered troops pass by deeper into the lines. So next retreat happens in a couple days and snowballing gathers momentum.

In the light of some AARs with stacking limits and China trampled through snowball effect, I wonder if something can be done by defending side?

Avoid overstacking? This means roughly 2x less defending troops holding the line so that eventual retreat be accomodated in the next layer w/o penalties. So attacker will have 2x numerical advantage from start, can be pretty tough for Chinese. No layered defence is also no good.

Manage retreat path? Is it at all possible? Manual states that retreat happens along valid supply path towards the base. However which base in particular seems random if there are several accesible. I've seen occurences when different LCUs retreat in opposite directions after the same battle, and supply paths were definitely different (one retreat into 41 value if toggled by key "5", another into 25 value), so not the most efficient path was chosen sometimes.

Wait patiently until attacking troops are battered enough? Might run out of real estate. A recent example had 3 hexes of 3x terrain pushed through nicely including the river crossing.

Wait patiently until you can reciprocate in 1944? AFBs are used to it but still

Your thoughts appreciated
Post #: 1
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/3/2015 9:31:26 PM   
btd64


Posts: 4544
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: offline
I believe it depends on the supply requirements of the unit plus other things. Alfred i'm sure has a detailed explaination as to what is involved. Try using the search function. Sometimes it works....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 3.4GHz,8GB Ram,1920x1080 rez

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DW Series-Beta Tester
TotS-Alpha Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to GetAssista)
Post #: 2
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/3/2015 11:13:13 PM   
Lokasenna


Posts: 7423
Joined: 3/3/2012
From: Iowan in MD/DC
Status: offline
My solution is to know where your troops will retreat (in China that's almost always backwards along some road or other), and don't have a bunch more troops there waiting to be overstacked by your broken retreaters.

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 3
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/4/2015 1:17:01 AM   
Shark7


Posts: 7786
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
Also if you are playing Allies trying to defend China, you really want to get your defensive stacks into heavy forest hexes where they can hold out indefinitely. They are very hard to dislodge from those forest hexes.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Lokasenna)
Post #: 4
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/4/2015 1:39:48 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9315
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Also if you are playing Allies trying to defend China, you really want to get your defensive stacks into heavy forest hexes where they can hold out indefinitely. They are very hard to dislodge from those forest hexes.


This advice only holds true if you have supply in China. My experience now shows me the the Japanese player should invade and at least hold India around Calcutta. China will get virtually no supply and eventually lose all supply centers. I have had zero supply for my troops in China for about six months. It is not the wooded terrain it is the last ditch terrain in the mountains around Kumming where snowballing works the best with low stacking limits, zero supply, Chinese units with up to 1/2 disrupted units, and with Japanese using massive ground bombing attack before an assault, I have seen snowballing work to perfection. Stacking limits are a total fail in China. They are not so bad elsewhere. To top it off every then dead Chinese unit goes into surrounded Chunking were massive over-stacking sucks all supply out of them. Even with no stacking limits China is hard to hold vs a skilled Japanese player. With stacking limits, there is not the remotest possibility.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 5
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/4/2015 2:03:16 AM   
Shark7


Posts: 7786
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline
Of course the stacking limits were put into place because the stacks had gotten out of hand. Seems the fix may be just as bad as the initial problem from what you describe.

To solve it, perhaps a system that excludes either the retreated troops or the non-retreated troops on the first attack? I think I understand the problem...that is if a IJA attack succeeds then is immediately followed by a move to where the chinese troops retreated, then the subsequent defense is seriously hampered by all those 'broken' chinese units that offer no military value? I'd almost have to call that gamey myself. It may be working as intended, but puts the Allied player at a severe disadvantage.

House rule perhaps? X amount of turns before troops that just conquered a base can 'pursue' the retreated units? I'd agree to that myself, game needs to be fun for both players.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 6
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/4/2015 2:20:48 AM   
Lowpe

 

Posts: 14633
Joined: 2/25/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: crsutton
This advice only holds true if you have supply in China. My experience now shows me the the Japanese player should invade and at least hold India around Calcutta.


I agree here...I think if the Allies control Ledo and form a massive air lift China can be held much longer. This is the Mr. Kane strategy I have harped on other threads.

I guess an answer might be to put in only 1/2 or so of the stacking limit on defense. That way a route will not overstack the next hex with horrible results. So 1/2 the stacking limit in x3 terrain and forts...Chinese forces simply lack the low manpower force multipliers that Japan can bring to the party.

I think the OP was writing about me moving up the Ankang road versus Jocke. But in truth, I was held at the original entry hex for a long time and had to cycle many divisions in and out before the snowball was started. Plus, I had to allocate a lot of planes to that spot. Now Jocke has 3x the stacking limit at Ankang and that has to hurt really badly especially since most of it is battered troops trying to retreat. And it probably hurts the supply the most...and supply is something you don't want to waste in China.





(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 7
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/4/2015 2:29:42 AM   
chijohnaok


Posts: 627
Joined: 7/29/2002
From: Florida, USA (formerly Chicago)
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Of course the stacking limits were put into place because the stacks had gotten out of hand. Seems the fix may be just as bad as the initial problem from what you describe.

To solve it, perhaps a system that excludes either the retreated troops or the non-retreated troops on the first attack? I think I understand the problem...that is if a IJA attack succeeds then is immediately followed by a move to where the chinese troops retreated, then the subsequent defense is seriously hampered by all those 'broken' chinese units that offer no military value? I'd almost have to call that gamey myself. It may be working as intended, but puts the Allied player at a severe disadvantage.

House rule perhaps? X amount of turns before troops that just conquered a base can 'pursue' the retreated units? I'd agree to that myself, game needs to be fun for both players.




quote:

then the subsequent defense is seriously hampered by all those 'broken' chinese units that offer no military value? I'd almost have to call that gamey myself. It may be working as intended, but puts the Allied player at a severe disadvantage.


I'm not sure that I would call it "gamey".
Having troops from the front retreating though a second "fallback" line set up behind them can be demoralizing. Seeing shattered disheveled men, panic written all over their faces, some of them wounded streaming through your lines isn't going to be good for moral.

< Message edited by chijohnaok -- 11/4/2015 3:32:26 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 8
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/4/2015 4:13:29 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 22230
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Of course the stacking limits were put into place because the stacks had gotten out of hand. Seems the fix may be just as bad as the initial problem from what you describe.

To solve it, perhaps a system that excludes either the retreated troops or the non-retreated troops on the first attack? I think I understand the problem...that is if a IJA attack succeeds then is immediately followed by a move to where the chinese troops retreated, then the subsequent defense is seriously hampered by all those 'broken' chinese units that offer no military value? I'd almost have to call that gamey myself. It may be working as intended, but puts the Allied player at a severe disadvantage.

House rule perhaps? X amount of turns before troops that just conquered a base can 'pursue' the retreated units? I'd agree to that myself, game needs to be fun for both players.




quote:

then the subsequent defense is seriously hampered by all those 'broken' chinese units that offer no military value? I'd almost have to call that gamey myself. It may be working as intended, but puts the Allied player at a severe disadvantage.


I'm not sure that I would call it "gamey".
Having troops from the front retreating though a second "fallback" line set up behind them can be demoralizing. Seeing shattered disheveled men, panic written all over their faces, some of them wounded streaming through your lines isn't going to be good for moral.

I agree. I think it better reflects the problems that defenders face in such a situation. Are the retreating troops really just left to starve, and so on?

It does make certain things more difficult, but I still like it.

_____________________________


(in reply to chijohnaok)
Post #: 9
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/4/2015 12:07:26 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 5696
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I agree. I think it better reflects the problems that defenders face in such a situation. Are the retreating troops really just left to starve, and so on?

It does make certain things more difficult, but I still like it.


Ditto.

The game has always been a cakewalk in China for the Japanese.
Stacking limits makes the game more realistic in many ways and eliminates DeathStar stack gaming.
Just because it didn't fix China, whose problems far eclipse stacking, doesn't make it a failure.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 10
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/4/2015 12:35:00 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11075
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I agree. I think it better reflects the problems that defenders face in such a situation. Are the retreating troops really just left to starve, and so on?

It does make certain things more difficult, but I still like it.


SLs were spackled onto the side of an engine never built to have them. In that sense they work fantastically well.

OTOH though, retreating troops ought to affect morale and disrupt the hexes they flee through. and have to eat, but they theoretically shouldn't eat more than a linear amount. The game basically makes Supply represent food and ammo (and av gas, but not relevant, plus sundries like clothing, also not relevant here.) Fleeing, routed troops eat, but mostly don't shoot.

SLs on atolls are a different matter to me. Those are combat-effective troops.

I'm playing China both ways, and so far I see pros and cons. I kinda agree that SLs don't fix China; they just change it. I'm still a ways away from seeing what they do in Burma.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 11/4/2015 1:36:28 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 11
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/4/2015 12:40:57 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8261
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lowpe
I think the OP was writing about me moving up the Ankang road versus Jocke. But in truth, I was held at the original entry hex for a long time and had to cycle many divisions in and out before the snowball was started. Plus, I had to allocate a lot of planes to that spot. Now Jocke has 3x the stacking limit at Ankang and that has to hurt really badly especially since most of it is battered troops trying to retreat. And it probably hurts the supply the most...and supply is something you don't want to waste in China.


It burned up all supply among the units in one turn. And when I say all I mean all.

It makes it really hard to build a defense in depth. And now I can´t get out of it as the snowball just keeps getting bigger as troops can´t evacuate before the Japanese move into the same hex. My main gripe with this is that it turns perfectly good dug in defenders into completely useless troops as their supply just vaporizes over a turn.

This is how Tom bust straight through China in just a couple of weeks. Just follow the routing blob of overstacked misery as it rolls toward Chungking!

(in reply to Lowpe)
Post #: 12
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/4/2015 2:23:52 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7786
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Of course the stacking limits were put into place because the stacks had gotten out of hand. Seems the fix may be just as bad as the initial problem from what you describe.

To solve it, perhaps a system that excludes either the retreated troops or the non-retreated troops on the first attack? I think I understand the problem...that is if a IJA attack succeeds then is immediately followed by a move to where the chinese troops retreated, then the subsequent defense is seriously hampered by all those 'broken' chinese units that offer no military value? I'd almost have to call that gamey myself. It may be working as intended, but puts the Allied player at a severe disadvantage.

House rule perhaps? X amount of turns before troops that just conquered a base can 'pursue' the retreated units? I'd agree to that myself, game needs to be fun for both players.




quote:

then the subsequent defense is seriously hampered by all those 'broken' chinese units that offer no military value? I'd almost have to call that gamey myself. It may be working as intended, but puts the Allied player at a severe disadvantage.


I'm not sure that I would call it "gamey".
Having troops from the front retreating though a second "fallback" line set up behind them can be demoralizing. Seeing shattered disheveled men, panic written all over their faces, some of them wounded streaming through your lines isn't going to be good for moral.


Normally I'd agree if the game hadn't added stacking limits that causes a big penalty from the overstack.

I see it from both sides. Without the stack limits, you could put 100 divisions in a place and hold it forever. With the stack limits your defense in depth gets broken when the units that retreat fall into your second defense line and over stacks it.

Perhaps the best solution was already suggested. Never stack more troops into a hex that will cause a retreat to overstack the adjacent hex. People may just have to adjust the way they play.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to chijohnaok)
Post #: 13
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/4/2015 2:25:52 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8261
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: chijohnaok

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Of course the stacking limits were put into place because the stacks had gotten out of hand. Seems the fix may be just as bad as the initial problem from what you describe.

To solve it, perhaps a system that excludes either the retreated troops or the non-retreated troops on the first attack? I think I understand the problem...that is if a IJA attack succeeds then is immediately followed by a move to where the chinese troops retreated, then the subsequent defense is seriously hampered by all those 'broken' chinese units that offer no military value? I'd almost have to call that gamey myself. It may be working as intended, but puts the Allied player at a severe disadvantage.

House rule perhaps? X amount of turns before troops that just conquered a base can 'pursue' the retreated units? I'd agree to that myself, game needs to be fun for both players.




quote:

then the subsequent defense is seriously hampered by all those 'broken' chinese units that offer no military value? I'd almost have to call that gamey myself. It may be working as intended, but puts the Allied player at a severe disadvantage.


I'm not sure that I would call it "gamey".
Having troops from the front retreating though a second "fallback" line set up behind them can be demoralizing. Seeing shattered disheveled men, panic written all over their faces, some of them wounded streaming through your lines isn't going to be good for moral.


Normally I'd agree if the game hadn't added stacking limits that causes a big penalty from the overstack.

I see it from both sides. Without the stack limits, you could put 100 divisions in a place and hold it forever. With the stack limits your defense in depth gets broken when the units that retreat fall into your second defense line and over stacks it.

Perhaps the best solution was already suggested. Never stack more troops into a hex that will cause a retreat to overstack the adjacent hex. People may just have to adjust the way they play.


Only problem with that is that the defender would be quickly overrun anyway due to lack of combat power.

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 14
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/4/2015 2:30:50 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 5696
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

JocMeister

Only problem with that is that the defender would be quickly overrun anyway due to lack of combat power.



Yea, no easy solution.

Lot's of very experienced gamers here though.

I'm confident one day we will come up with a fix.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 15
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/4/2015 2:33:22 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7786
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

JocMeister

Only problem with that is that the defender would be quickly overrun anyway due to lack of combat power.



Yea, no easy solution.

Lot's of very experienced gamers here though.

I'm confident one day we will come up with a fix.


Against the AI this is really evident. Once you beat the stack initially, you can chase it down with a single division and keep it on the run. Chinese units tend to get routed when beaten, more so than any unit in game.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 16
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/4/2015 2:39:53 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 5696
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

JocMeister

Only problem with that is that the defender would be quickly overrun anyway due to lack of combat power.



Yea, no easy solution.

Lot's of very experienced gamers here though.

I'm confident one day we will come up with a fix.


Against the AI this is really evident. Once you beat the stack initially, you can chase it down with a single division and keep it on the run. Chinese units tend to get routed when beaten, more so than any unit in game.


Perhaps it seems so because we tend to see the Chinese getting routed more often than any other nationality.

I'm actually seeing the same thing in Manchuria with the Japanese. Once a Russian stack forces the Japs to retreat a single Russian division is enough to follow and keep them routing.

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 17
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/4/2015 2:50:22 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9315
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I agree. I think it better reflects the problems that defenders face in such a situation. Are the retreating troops really just left to starve, and so on?

It does make certain things more difficult, but I still like it.


Ditto.

The game has always been a cakewalk in China for the Japanese.
Stacking limits makes the game more realistic in many ways and eliminates DeathStar stack gaming.
Just because it didn't fix China, whose problems far eclipse stacking, doesn't make it a failure.


Yes a valid point as I think stacking limits are working well for the most part in all other theaters. The only other issue might be a late war invasion of Japan. There is really not much room in Japan and it could be a problem for the Japanese. Of course, few games make it that far so it is less imperative than the China thing which faces a whole boatload of issues.

I think a better solution is to allow all Chinese units to draw at least a minimal amount of supply from the surrounding country. Chinese troops over all other nations were very adept at living off the land-including setting up their own crude munitions factories. In the end, of the supply that the Allies flew into China only a very small fraction actually went to Chinese ground troops. The vast bulk of the supply went to support the Allied air force, and of the supply that went to Chinese troops 90% went to the "private" Allied armies that the Allies nominally controlled in India and Burma. The survival of China should not be dependent on the air bridge from India. And this would eliminated a major game play move that is almost set in stone for Japan. Likewise, it is not unusual to accumulate literally thousands of Chinese replacement squads in the pool that cannot be used as you usually can not take replacement due to lack of supply. Chinese units should be exempt from any supply requirements and changed zero supply for taking replacements. This would go a long way towards rectifying the China issues for the Allies.

I will note that China is the one theater that the Allies can totally lose and still win the game. In the end, it is still a naval war and if the Allied player wins that, they should be just fine.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 18
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/4/2015 2:53:37 PM   
JocMeister

 

Posts: 8261
Joined: 7/29/2009
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter
Yea, no easy solution.

Lot's of very experienced gamers here though.

I'm confident one day we will come up with a fix.


In all honestly I don´t think much more can be done with this engine. Not unless some of the devs with access to the code can/want/is allowed to come up with a better solution. But given how little have happened with the ground part of the game over the years I don´t think more can be done.

What we really need is WITP 2 on a new engine.

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 19
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/4/2015 3:19:46 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5037
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
Whilst Allied players continue to employ the wrong strategy and tactics in China, they will continue to get these results with or without stacking limits.

Alfred

(in reply to JocMeister)
Post #: 20
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/4/2015 8:43:38 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9315
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Whilst Allied players continue to employ the wrong strategy and tactics in China, they will continue to get these results with or without stacking limits.

Alfred


Well, of course, that is the solution. Right in front of our eyes the whole time.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 21
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/20/2015 4:59:18 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9315
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: online
I would say that now after watching my opponent clear the road between Kweiyang and Paoshan in about one months game time, just blowing me out of hex after hex, that stacking limits are a total fail and actually does the reverse of what stacking limits were intended to do. I should have held out in that terrain for months if not indefinitely but he was able to blow through (and kill tens of thousands of Chinese in the process) with about two to three divisions on each end and some tank units with heavy air support. The defeated Chinese retreated onto good order Chinese stacks-leaving an over stacked mess in the hex. Disorganized units could not either move or recover due to the complete suck up of supply. Air bombing attacks in good terrain would kill hundreds of men due to over stacking, disruption would not recover and the eventual attack would defeat the stack kill thousands more men and push the mess up the road onto the next stack. I rate it as totally screwed and would not advise an Allied player to accept stacking limits without some sort of serious agreement in China.

< Message edited by crsutton -- 11/20/2015 5:59:45 AM >


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 22
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/20/2015 5:29:55 AM   
KenchiSulla


Posts: 2779
Joined: 10/22/2008
From: the Netherlands
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Whilst Allied players continue to employ the wrong strategy and tactics in China, they will continue to get these results with or without stacking limits.

Alfred


Fight where you can win, outflank the enemy advance and cut off supply routes with small units.... And hang on to those precious, defend-able places that give you supply....

_____________________________

AKA Cannonfodder

"It happened, therefore it can happen again: this is the core of what we have to say. It can happen, and it can happen everywhere.”
¯ Primo Levi, writer, holocaust survivo

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 23
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/20/2015 5:36:43 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 3501
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
Can the stacking limits be edited by ordinary mortals? Or is this reserved for devs only?

_____________________________


(in reply to KenchiSulla)
Post #: 24
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/20/2015 5:50:05 AM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 4232
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Whilst Allied players continue to employ the wrong strategy and tactics in China, they will continue to get these results with or without stacking limits.

Alfred


Does this statement presume there is no Japanese counter to China played the right way? I would hazard a guess there is. If the Allies would play China differently, it begs the question, wouldn't the Japanese too?

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 25
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/20/2015 5:52:43 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10258
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
The values are embedded in the PWHEXE file. If you know the format of the file it would be very tough to tweak. I'm not sure if the values in PWHEXE are type codes or the actual stacking limits. I haven't looked at the code and haven't been coding AE since 2010.

I think there is a format primer somewhere here on the forum. You could also look in a non stacking PWHEXE and a stacking PWHEXE and compare.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 26
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/20/2015 11:04:01 AM   
HansBolter


Posts: 5696
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline
Offered up an idea in another thread.

Having retreating units continue to retreat through a hex if stopping in that hex would cause overstacking would seem to be a good solution.

In order to keep the retereating side from getting away scot free with no detrimental effect, perhaps it could cause a morale drop on the units in the hex being retreated through.

This would mean the defender would still be able to effectively bolster his front line by having a second line that doesn't cause disaster when the defeated units in the front line are forced to retreat.

This would also turn a second line into a safety net for the front line, allowing the shattered units to retreat to a screened position to recover.

It would give a real meaning to a second line.

< Message edited by HansBolter -- 11/20/2015 12:03:25 PM >


_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 27
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/20/2015 2:33:15 PM   
crsutton


Posts: 9315
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

Offered up an idea in another thread.

Having retreating units continue to retreat through a hex if stopping in that hex would cause overstacking would seem to be a good solution.

In order to keep the retereating side from getting away scot free with no detrimental effect, perhaps it could cause a morale drop on the units in the hex being retreated through.

This would mean the defender would still be able to effectively bolster his front line by having a second line that doesn't cause disaster when the defeated units in the front line are forced to retreat.

This would also turn a second line into a safety net for the front line, allowing the shattered units to retreat to a screened position to recover.

It would give a real meaning to a second line.


Well, some good ideas Hans but I am not sure that it would prove to be a solution. The terrain in Western China is very limited as far as stacking goes and then tendency is to defend in depth-especially with stacking limits. The issue is the road which is critical to hold and the route that retreating units tend to take. In this case, I could see a defeated unit retreated through multiple hexes. It might just create other issues.

I am venting about one frustrating aspect of stacking limits but the guys that made DaBabes Mod and incorporated stacking limits basically have made a good game much better. So, I doubt I would want to go back to stock. I don't know that they would want to devote a great amount of time on something that may end of being a major fix and then might present problems of its own. Fighting in China has always had its issues and this just adds another. Perhaps there is an easier solution such as adding higher garrison requirements for Japan or finding a way for Chinese units to always have a trickle of supply to reflect living off the land.


_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 28
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/20/2015 7:10:30 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 5037
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SqzMyLemon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Whilst Allied players continue to employ the wrong strategy and tactics in China, they will continue to get these results with or without stacking limits.

Alfred


Does this statement presume there is no Japanese counter to China played the right way? I would hazard a guess there is. If the Allies would play China differently, it begs the question, wouldn't the Japanese too?


No, there is always a counter.

What this thread and the other concurrent one on the oft raised "how do we fix China (insert for an Allied player)" issue is focussed on structural considerations.

My point, which I have made a few times in AARs and in the concurrent thread, is that almost all Allied players adopt the totally wrong dynamic which is impossible to be supported by any structural arrangements which attempt to still retain any connection with the historical situation.

Without exception, every Allied player who complains about Japanese ahistorical advances in China is confronted with an opponent who is using an unhistorical force posture.

There are two fundamental problems with these Allied complaints.

(a) what is so strange to expect a Japanese player to achieve unhistorical results if deploying an unhistorical strategy with the requisite assets to carry it out successfully, and

(b) Allied players do not, I repeat do not, use the historical Chinese strategy which helped to discourage the Japanese employing in 1942-43 the ahistorical strategy which Japanese AE players commonly adopt

Both of the above are dynamic, not structural, issues.

I will say it again, the attempt to establish a MLR in China will always fail. There was no historical MLR in China, so on what objective historical basis do Allied players expect to be able to establish and successfully maintain in China a WWI Western Front MLR. If they want to play a game which very successfully captures the historical essence of the capabilities of the time, then it is time to stop thinking they are entitled to approach the Chinese theatre as if it were an American theatre of operations.

Structurally China can never be made to resemble a 1943 Kharkov with it's 5-7 heavily fortified lines of defence in depth. It cannot replicate the Heinrici planned response to Zhukov's pending attack on Berlin with an orderly redeployment within his 3 lines of defence stretching back to the Seelowe Heights festung.

In all of this, there is a substantial opportunity cost to Japan when it pursues an unhistorical strategy in China. Part of adopting an appropriate Allied response to this is to exploit this opportunity cost. A Chinese MLR does zilch in terms of exploiting this opportunity cost.

So next time an Allied player demands China be "fixed" by tinkering with structural factors, there is a very simple question to be put to them;

"How exactly does a China with every single city under Japanese ownership by September 1942 and solely as a result of that ahistorical outcome, prevent an Allied player who outplays his opponent from achieving a decisive victory as detailed in chapter 17 of the manual?"

Alfred

(in reply to SqzMyLemon)
Post #: 29
RE: Snowballing through defence with stacking limits - 11/20/2015 8:45:49 PM   
SqzMyLemon


Posts: 4232
Joined: 10/30/2009
From: Alberta, Canada
Status: offline
Thanks for taking the time to flesh that out Alfred.

I agree, I don't think a traditional MLR defence will work for the Allies in China. However, I just don't think any other strategy will work either under the current supply limitations for the Chinese. Without supply the Chinese have no staying power to implement any effective strategy, be that fighting or relying on LOC infiltration, unless their Japanese opponent lets them. I don't know, the threat of leaving China to fester just isn't possible for Japan and is why you see the ahistorical pursuit of knocking it out game after game. I understand the cost to Japan to completely take China out of the war, as Pax and yourself have alluded to, but is there an alternative? It seems to me Japan has to pursue China aggressively otherwise the risk of not doing so is extremely dangerous, but I'd personally like to see lack of supply not be the primary reason for a Chinese collapse in game after game.

Perhaps Francois will school me on how it's done in our PBEM.

_____________________________

Luck is the residue of design - John Milton

Don't mistake lack of talent for genius - Peter Steele (Type O Negative)

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Snowballing through defence with stacking limits Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.176