Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

This new stand alone release based on the legendary War in the Pacific from 2 by 3 Games adds significant improvements and changes to enhance game play, improve realism, and increase historical accuracy. With dozens of new features, new art, and engine improvements, War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition brings you the most realistic and immersive WWII Pacific Theater wargame ever!

Moderators: wdolson, MOD_War-in-the-Pacific-Admirals-Edition

User avatar
n01487477
Posts: 4759
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2006 12:00 am

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

Post by n01487477 »

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: Shark7

You can significantly shorten the game as Allies if you do this...in that some players will not continue if Palembang is completely destroyed. It is a very unfortunate thing that one base is the make or break of the entire game.

I sometimes think that the Palembang refineries and oil should have been split up and placed in several dot bases surrounding the actual base location. You know, something like you have an 'Palembang Oilfield North, Palembang Oilfield West, etc' just due to how much importance is placed on that 1 location.

The strategy listed here is perfectly viable, just realize that it could turn into a game-breaker in some circumstances.

And taking it too early as Japan leaves the refineries and oilfields open to destruction by Allied bomber raids.
Is it still possible to add a device several times to one base? I had seen (and experienced it) this problem in witp times. A simle workaround was to set 5 or more oilwells into one base, with the combined output of the single well that was in stock. In even of damage, one was able to repair x (= number of oilwells) times faster than in stock.
I've thought about this for my Options_88 mod. The mod is non-historical in terms of shipping and aircraft and yet I wanted to make it an economic mod that was harder - so I'm at a crossroads with no clear answers. Whether to keep it as is, cause it did take a long time for the Japanese to repair it historically or to double it or x? and make it easier to repair.
User avatar
castor troy
Posts: 14331
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Austria

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

Post by castor troy »

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Wouldn't the simplest solution be a "Gentlemen's Agreement" to stick to reality? No way the British were going to reinforce Dutch territory when Malaya and Burma were both vulnerable. In return, there was no way the Japanese were going to go thundering off after Australian holdings in the Bismarcks, Solomans, or New Guinea until they had achieved there more important goals in East Asia (ie. before January). Reasonable is always the best solution.


absolutely! If ppl wouldn't come up with most unrealistic - ridicoulos in terms of real life - strategies we would not discuss these things. The game isn't forcing you into realistic strategies and tactics but will play out a hundred times better if you stick to realistic approaches. If someone takes whole India because his initial landing was six IJA divs at Karachi with the next major IJN port being Saigon he will be applauded instead of being told what a ridicoulos approach. You can never be 100% realistic but a more realistic approach to the game sure helps for a better game experience, especially if you want to play it for more than a couple of months game time which is something only very few ppl are willing to try lately, at least that is my impression when reading the forum and my experience of my last three of four PBEMs.
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

Post by Shark7 »

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: Shark7

You can significantly shorten the game as Allies if you do this...in that some players will not continue if Palembang is completely destroyed. It is a very unfortunate thing that one base is the make or break of the entire game.

I sometimes think that the Palembang refineries and oil should have been split up and placed in several dot bases surrounding the actual base location. You know, something like you have an 'Palembang Oilfield North, Palembang Oilfield West, etc' just due to how much importance is placed on that 1 location.

The strategy listed here is perfectly viable, just realize that it could turn into a game-breaker in some circumstances.

And taking it too early as Japan leaves the refineries and oilfields open to destruction by Allied bomber raids.
Is it still possible to add a device several times to one base? I had seen (and experienced it) this problem in witp times. A simle workaround was to set 5 or more oilwells into one base, with the combined output of the single well that was in stock. In even of damage, one was able to repair x (= number of oilwells) times faster than in stock.

That is an excellent solution, and yes it will work.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
User avatar
Shark7
Posts: 7936
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2007 4:11 pm
Location: The Big Nowhere

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

Post by Shark7 »

ORIGINAL: n01487477

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: Shark7

You can significantly shorten the game as Allies if you do this...in that some players will not continue if Palembang is completely destroyed. It is a very unfortunate thing that one base is the make or break of the entire game.

I sometimes think that the Palembang refineries and oil should have been split up and placed in several dot bases surrounding the actual base location. You know, something like you have an 'Palembang Oilfield North, Palembang Oilfield West, etc' just due to how much importance is placed on that 1 location.

The strategy listed here is perfectly viable, just realize that it could turn into a game-breaker in some circumstances.

And taking it too early as Japan leaves the refineries and oilfields open to destruction by Allied bomber raids.
Is it still possible to add a device several times to one base? I had seen (and experienced it) this problem in witp times. A simle workaround was to set 5 or more oilwells into one base, with the combined output of the single well that was in stock. In even of damage, one was able to repair x (= number of oilwells) times faster than in stock.
I've thought about this for my Options_88 mod. The mod is non-historical in terms of shipping and aircraft and yet I wanted to make it an economic mod that was harder - so I'm at a crossroads with no clear answers. Whether to keep it as is, cause it did take a long time for the Japanese to repair it historically or to double it or x? and make it easier to repair.

From what I recall...

1. The oilfields and refineries were barely damaged at all. The demolition charges failed in some cases, or the fields were taken very quickly in others.
2. The Japanese had specially trained oilfield engineer units that repaired the oilfields far faster than the Allies had predicted they could.
Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

Post by Historiker »

ORIGINAL: castor troy
ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Wouldn't the simplest solution be a "Gentlemen's Agreement" to stick to reality? No way the British were going to reinforce Dutch territory when Malaya and Burma were both vulnerable. In return, there was no way the Japanese were going to go thundering off after Australian holdings in the Bismarcks, Solomans, or New Guinea until they had achieved there more important goals in East Asia (ie. before January). Reasonable is always the best solution.


absolutely! If ppl wouldn't come up with most unrealistic - ridicoulos in terms of real life - strategies we would not discuss these things. The game isn't forcing you into realistic strategies and tactics but will play out a hundred times better if you stick to realistic approaches. If someone takes whole India because his initial landing was six IJA divs at Karachi with the next major IJN port being Saigon he will be applauded instead of being told what a ridicoulos approach. You can never be 100% realistic but a more realistic approach to the game sure helps for a better game experience, especially if you want to play it for more than a couple of months game time which is something only very few ppl are willing to try lately, at least that is my impression when reading the forum and my experience of my last three of four PBEMs.
Yep.
The whole idea of "Fortress Palembang" is ridicoulus. Evacuate Java and Malaya to send thousands of combat troops into the swamps at Palembang to let them eat petrol, shoot oil and replace fallen soliders with avgas. [:D]
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

Post by Historiker »

ORIGINAL: Shark7

ORIGINAL: Historiker

ORIGINAL: Shark7

You can significantly shorten the game as Allies if you do this...in that some players will not continue if Palembang is completely destroyed. It is a very unfortunate thing that one base is the make or break of the entire game.

I sometimes think that the Palembang refineries and oil should have been split up and placed in several dot bases surrounding the actual base location. You know, something like you have an 'Palembang Oilfield North, Palembang Oilfield West, etc' just due to how much importance is placed on that 1 location.

The strategy listed here is perfectly viable, just realize that it could turn into a game-breaker in some circumstances.

And taking it too early as Japan leaves the refineries and oilfields open to destruction by Allied bomber raids.
Is it still possible to add a device several times to one base? I had seen (and experienced it) this problem in witp times. A simle workaround was to set 5 or more oilwells into one base, with the combined output of the single well that was in stock. In even of damage, one was able to repair x (= number of oilwells) times faster than in stock.

That is an excellent solution, and yes it will work.
It will still be difficult enough. Just imagine 10 oilwells with 100 each. All are damaged 50%, so they could be working within two months.
Now have fun getting 500.000 supplies there and unload them in time... [8D]
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
SuluSea
Posts: 2378
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:13 pm

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

Post by SuluSea »

Of course every game has it's own set of rules.

Since scenario 2 is more of a free for all my opinion would be the Allied player could reinforce at anytime. However in scenario 1 I'm a believer some restraint should be in order since ABDA wasn't agreed upon until late 12/41 and the command didn't become active until 1/15/42.
"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Historiker
ORIGINAL: castor troy
ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

Wouldn't the simplest solution be a "Gentlemen's Agreement" to stick to reality? No way the British were going to reinforce Dutch territory when Malaya and Burma were both vulnerable. In return, there was no way the Japanese were going to go thundering off after Australian holdings in the Bismarcks, Solomans, or New Guinea until they had achieved there more important goals in East Asia (ie. before January). Reasonable is always the best solution.


absolutely! If ppl wouldn't come up with most unrealistic - ridicoulos in terms of real life - strategies we would not discuss these things. The game isn't forcing you into realistic strategies and tactics but will play out a hundred times better if you stick to realistic approaches. If someone takes whole India because his initial landing was six IJA divs at Karachi with the next major IJN port being Saigon he will be applauded instead of being told what a ridicoulos approach. You can never be 100% realistic but a more realistic approach to the game sure helps for a better game experience, especially if you want to play it for more than a couple of months game time which is something only very few ppl are willing to try lately, at least that is my impression when reading the forum and my experience of my last three of four PBEMs.
Yep.
The whole idea of "Fortress Palembang" is ridicoulus. Evacuate Java and Malaya to send thousands of combat troops into the swamps at Palembang to let them eat petrol, shoot oil and replace fallen soliders with avgas. [:D]

I agree with the sentiment posed by the three posters quoted here.

To Q-ball's initial query about how to unwind a 'Fortress Palembang' position-that approach looks like it will be tactically sufficient.

I would be disappointed if my Allied opponent pulled this other worldly stunt. I would consider this prima faciae evidence that he never intended to stick close to historical reality (one of the central tenets that I seek in PBEM opponents) and was breaking with it so soon into the start of the war.

At least your opponent could tell you their ideas about implementing a "Fortress Palembang" approach before game start. If they're going to pull that sort of thing then you can:

1. Honor their tendencies towards ahistoric play and use your magic movement TFs to fast transport 6 IJA IDs to Karachi in December 1941.
2. Prepare for this eventuality (as per Q-ball's protocol) to liquidate the Allied Palembang position.
3. Scrap all other "gentleman's agreements" that affect gameplay.
4. Reconsider whether this opponent is REALLY what you're looking for in a PBEM for the long run.
5. All of the above.
Image
Lomri
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Feb 06, 2009 9:09 pm

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

Post by Lomri »


The argument against a totally a-historic Allied gambit at the start of the game is especially valid when talking making an enjoyable gaming experience for everyone. But if Japan takes too long to get to Palembang then all bets are off. Q-Ball's 21st deadline is for someone pushing for this move from day one. But give the Allies enough room in this region and Be It On Your Head if they create a strong defensive bastion.
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

It is my MOST IMPORTANT landing of the DEI Campaign. Qball is dead right. With how the game functions, the Japanese have to get there fast with a lot and smash through before the Allied player makes it certain the refineries will be destroyed.



Yes...this is a major problem. In my last PBEM with a partner (vs. 2 very very good Allied players) we got all tangled up in that. This is why i hated the introduction of the "convoys" with reinforcement brigades historically meant for other areas (and politically influenced) that later fell to the Japanese. To a man, these powerful units are immediately diverted to better areas where they act as serious trip wires to the pace of Player one SRA offensive. Combine that with the free supply generated by places like Palembang and your only recourse as Player one is to "rush", including the use of reverse tactics.

Player one is essentially forced to think outside the box to counter it, including the use of what is often accused as "ahistorical" tactics. But there's little other way to do it. IIRC, "Nemo" said that if he was allowed to implement such a move he was essentially impregnible and it would styme Player one into a early defeat. lol. Dec 21st. The Japanese were nowhere near ready to invade Sumata in December historically.

User avatar
Onime No Kyo
Posts: 16846
Joined: Wed Apr 28, 2004 5:55 am

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

Post by Onime No Kyo »

I've never played a PBEM as Japan so I wont claim to know the problems, I'm just curious as to why so many people here seem to think that reinforcing Palembang is such a ridiculous notion.If we take it as a given that Palembang is the major oil producing location on the map, you can also take it as a given that the Allied commander would know that as well as the Japanese commander trying to capture it.

Now, if theres some sort of a game mechanics question involved, thats a different matter. But to say that its a "ridiculous" notion is ridiculous in itself, it seems to me.
"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok
User avatar
Nikademus
Posts: 22517
Joined: Sat May 27, 2000 8:00 am
Location: Alien spacecraft

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

Post by Nikademus »

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo

I've never played a PBEM as Japan so I wont claim to know the problems, I'm just curious as to why so many people here seem to think that reinforcing Palembang is such a ridiculous notion.If we take it as a given that Palembang is the major oil producing location on the map, you can also take it as a given that the Allied commander would know that as well as the Japanese commander trying to capture it.

Now, if theres some sort of a game mechanics question involved, thats a different matter. But to say that its a "ridiculous" notion is ridiculous in itself, it seems to me.

I wasn't myself saying the defense was "ridiculous", I said it was a 'problem' for the Player one. It has game breaking consequences when added to the detail control given to the players coupled with how production centers work. To make P a fortress you just need to get a couple large units there and entrench. The 'local generated' supply does the rest. If one wishes to add "realism" to the discussion, historically logistics were a major problem so it wasn't simply a matter of moving in large units and digging in ala the Eastern Front. Also there's the hindsight factor. The Japanese plan was logical and there were reasons why certain areas were invaded first. Using this hindsight, Player two can rush reinforcements to a critical spot and according to the OT, if its put into place by Dec 21, you're pretty much set. "Historically" the Japanese were in no such position to invade Sumatra (short of using WitP war maneuvers) well after that period. That creates a problem of simulating the actual historical situation.

Its not unique to WitP. Alot of the angst caused in the current WitE follows along similar lines. The common denominator is the level of player control. The more control given to the player, the more the game pace can be thrown out of wack. This issue then gets buried under accusations and counter-accusations of player bias favoring one side or the other.

Speaking strictly from game experience, as player one......i find Palembang/Sumatra/Java/Timor a major challenge because unless one uses reverse tactics, player two has all the time in the world to coordinate forces and make these locations if not impregnible, but extremely tough.

Interestingly, PacWar simulated the Theater better because it limited player input, but a small number of players complained that they "couldn't do anything" with the area and wanted more control. Now we have AE at the end of the evolutionary line with a level of detail control that causes eye strain but no corrosponding govenors on decision making and a generic supply system that supports fortress building even in areas where it wasn't feasible. Any time you have a Pro that has no sufficient Con to counter it, you get a problem in wargaming.

User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

Post by Historiker »

What was portrayed is that the British abandon Malaya to send their troops to some Dutch swamp area.
Or that they don't send their reinforcements to Singapore or Burma, but to some swamps in the DEI.
Or that the Dutch weaken Java, with many Dutch civilians on it, to defend some swampy oilwells.


It is an exploit of several game elements, pure and simple. If this is the way this PBEM is played, then so be it. But both sides should be well aware of it.
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo
Now, if theres some sort of a game mechanics question involved, thats a different matter.

Onime,

I'm late on the scene on this one too. The reason "Fortress" Palembang isn't "Fortress anywhere else on Sumatra" is because of the game mechanic of oil refineries producing supply. This supply can be used to support massive armies in this hex.

Several extreme AAR examples have resulted in the Allies prematurely exiting Singapore and preferentially building Palembang. Knowing that they would always be in supply, several players have sent arriving British infantry divisions to hold this bastion and evacuated critical LCUs from Malaya here to build this bullwark.

This supply problem allows a defense to be built way deeper than it could IRL, faster and on a critically important oil hex to deny it to an IJ opponent. It goes way beyond putting some disposal engineer units on the hex to trash it when the IJ pushes the Allies out.
Image
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

Post by Canoerebel »

I'm only aware of one game in which the Allies drew down on Singapore in order to garrison Palembang:  Nemo vs. One-Eyed-Jacks.
 
This is all much ado about nothing.  Japan can counter any Fortress Palembang effort.  There are also clever ways for Japan to take advantage of a FP effort.  (Nemo and Alfred have posted about this at length in various AARs).
 
FP can force Japan to halt what it wants to do in favor of what it has to do, but there's nothing wrong with that.  If the Japanese player is alert, he can retake the initiative.  If he's not, he's in trouble.  Okay, big deal.
 
But claiming this is some kind of major anomoloy because the Allied didn't or couldn't do it?  Hah  What about Japan hanging around Pearl Harbor and striking for four consecutive days as the OP did in our game?  I didn't complain about that because I, as the Allied player, could have taken advantage of that had I had enough experience and smarts.  Japan couldn't/wouldn't have done that in real life, so do we have to have a House Rule preventing it?  Of course not.  Neither is one necessary for FP.
 
One of the beauties of the game is identifying and implementing creative strategies that think "outside the box."  That puts us as players most realistically in the seats of commanders who, at the outset of the real war, didn't know that certain areas would be critial.  Guadalanal, Point Luck, and Iwo Jima, for instance.  Absent some "novelties" introduced into the game, either intentionally or unintentionally, alot of drama and suspese disappears to.
 
I say "bring on the anomalies."  IN fact, now that some have been identified, analyzed and countered, we need more of them!  We need the developers quietly to come up with some things and sprinkle them about the map.
 
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
I say "bring on the anomalies."  IN fact, now that some have been identified, analyzed and countered, we need more of them!  We need the developers quietly to come up with some things and sprinkle them about the map.

Not interested in this sort of game that repurposes gameplay issues as clever tactical / strategic planning.
Image
User avatar
Canoerebel
Posts: 21099
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2002 11:21 pm
Location: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Contact:

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

Post by Canoerebel »

I don't even know what that means.
"Rats set fire to Mr. Cooper’s store in Fort Valley. No damage done." Columbus (Ga) Enquirer-Sun, October 2, 1880.
User avatar
Historiker
Posts: 4742
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2007 8:11 pm
Location: Deutschland

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

Post by Historiker »

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel
I say "bring on the anomalies."  IN fact, now that some have been identified, analyzed and countered, we need more of them!  We need the developers quietly to come up with some things and sprinkle them about the map.

Not interested in this sort of game that repurposes gameplay issues as clever tactical / strategic planning.
+1

I have yet to see where someone admits he intentionelly exploits [;)]
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!

There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson
User avatar
Sardaukar
Posts: 11279
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2001 10:00 am
Location: Finland/Israel

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

Post by Sardaukar »

As said, problem disappears when playing modified scenarios where refineries do not produce supplies.
"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-

Image
User avatar
Chickenboy
Posts: 24520
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 11:30 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

Post by Chickenboy »

ORIGINAL: Canoerebel

I don't even know what that means.

Sorry. I thought I was being clear.

The use of the "Fortress Palembang" defense is an exploit of game mechanics and has nothing to do with a clever defense strategy. I cannot repackage / repurpose an exploit of game mechanics and turn it into a novel / creative defense strategy in my mind. I would hope to root out exploiters of game mechanics in the pre-game discussion, so as to not have my PBEM descend to the lowest common denominator.

Hope that's clearer.
Image
Post Reply

Return to “War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition”