Matrix Games Forums

More Games are Coming to Steam! Deal of the Week: Combat Command Return to the Moon on October 31st! Commander: The Great War iPad Wallpapers Generals of the Great WarDeal of the Week Panzer CorpsNew Strategy Titles Join the FamilyTablet Version of Qvadriga gets new patchNew Command Ops: Battles from the Bulge UpdateCommand gets a huge update!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread

 
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 >> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread Page: <<   < prev  65 66 [67] 68 69   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 4/25/2010 4:41:39 PM   
jwilkerson


Posts: 10259
Joined: 9/15/2002
From: San Jose, CA
Status: offline
For years, I thought many British combat units called themselves "regiments" when they were really "battalions" - but I think I finally figured out - this isn't really the case.

When the Brits say "2nd Para Regt" for example - this is "short hand" for "2nd Battalion of the Parachute Regiment". Or like "2nd RTR" - is "2nd Battalion of the Royal Tank Regiment". It is just the abbreviation system that confuses some of us into thinking the Brits are calling their battalions - regiments.

Now for AT units or Engineer units - the "regiment" is a "battalion" idea seems to be real - but for infantry and armour - I think it is just an abbreviation thingy.

However, I do recall some old SPI games that showed all the "2RTR" type units with the regiment III size indicator - clearly this was wrong!



_____________________________

AE Project Lead

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1981
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 4/27/2010 6:27:16 AM   
Barb


Posts: 1591
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Slovakia
Status: offline
Britsh System is different from others.
They have "mother unit" - the Regiment which can have any number of battalions (for example RTRs highest numbered battalion was 51st!!!). These Battalions were then assigned to Divisions or Brigades, moved up and down, left and right as needed.


_____________________________


"Hello IT. Have you tried turning it off and on again?"

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 1982
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 4/27/2010 10:46:38 AM   
Paul McNeely

 

Posts: 616
Joined: 9/8/2000
From: Germany
Status: offline
What brought my question up was a IJA engineering Regiment holding off an attack by an Australian Brigade.  I don't really see how that could happen.  The base units don't add any ground forces and 2 battalions of infantry (assuming 1 in reserve) would cut through most engineer companies handily especially with their artillery support.  But so far my experience with the combat system is that it is very much hit and miss in terms of what you see and what you expect. 

The Chinese have been doing ok defensively (2 full IJA divisions have been rendered combat ineffective due to blundered shock attacks), 3 independent bde are tied down in fruitless and wearing fighting at the border to French Indochina, though why that Infantry Corps morale is stuck at 30 is beyond me.  It has stood off repeated assaults for over 2 months I would think it would have a 99 morale (the AV of the 3 bdes are below 40 each).  A corps on the extreme end of my line dug into the mountain that has held off for months 3 bde of what I think are Manchuko troops, but they are down to AV 25ish and the chinese corps has weekly grown stronger.  Another IJA division and bde are tied down fighting 2 infantry Corps and a Cavalry corps (nearly full strength) sent in for reinforcements.  The two IJA units are now below half strength and have yet to get a 1:1 attack, one infantry Corps has basically all its rifle squads disabled but the other is fine and the infantry is both in level 4 forts.  The AI landed 3 divisions at Wenchow and the fighting there was fierce, they pushed me out and then left nothing covering it so I retook it.  It is now held in force.  There was a series of punitive expeditions that they launched that they retreated from holding what they took from.  But in these cases the division plus independent bdes or just independent bde's pushed the Chinese around with little difficulty. My attack on Sigyang early on was rebuffed but it forced the AI to deploy a major force and the troops were isolated in the city for several days before the relief force blew in. Looks like the main thing you can do in China is force the Japanese to deal with cut supply lines, and from my limited understanding of the theatre that is correct.

Batvia fell in 2 days with minimal casualties but Bandoen (changed in edit) has held for 3 days inflicting serious japanese losses.  Singapore fell quickly but Bataan held out with no supply for over 10 days, until the Japanese brought up 2 fresh divisions still at the end 4 engineering regiments were combat ineffective, 2 tank regiments combat ineffective, 1 division at half strength, another at the nominal strength of a bde, the infantry regiment combat ineffective.  By combat ineffective I mean AV 0, except the tank regiments which were AV 4 and AV 27 at the end one had to be burned out and the other at half strength.

Pego? (the base just outside of Rangoon) fell in a single day, but Rangoon held out for 4 days.  The units ended up with 50+ experience.  I lost Viper force and a Burma Bn but the others retreated.

The fighting at Balikpan has been brutal.  I am running all the forces in borneo there and there is but a single japanese unit there so maybe I can retake it.  Since it generates supply I might be able to hold it with the odds and sods I have left.  If the Japanese had not landed tanks (or my coastal guns had sunk the damn ship after hitting it 50 times) I doubt I would have lost it.

The AI also often leaves nothing behind it, so it has proven possible to recapture bases.  Especially in China were I recovered 3 cities I had lost.

Batvia fell because it lost 2 fort levels in a single day, nothing will convince me that they don't drop too fast.

Also I would remove the "shock attack" from the choice of selectable options.  I'm not sure what it is supposed to be, but it seems illogical.  Involuntary "shock" attacks are reasonable but there seems little incentive to not use it and then you get these extremely short battles.

(Removed the comments about the 2lbers in the edit as I had mis-recalled the stats. The penetration of the gun and the japanese "tanks" armour values are in line with reasonable. My apologies for bad memory.)

I'm afraid that the ground combat is probably the most frustrating aspect of the game for me.  I think this is largely because at the end of the day it is very hard to sort out why something happened.  Now admittedly in many of these battles the force imbalance has been horrid (4 divisions hit Singapore, Batvia, and Rangoon plus all the tanks (not present at Batvia) and artillery).  The WW1 artillery general's wet dream has at least ended since I've not seen the absurd bombardment results since the last patch.  I've adopted a "grin and bear it and try not to yell at the computer too loudly" attitude.


< Message edited by Paul McNeely -- 5/1/2010 8:07:03 AM >

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 1983
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 4/29/2010 9:12:42 PM   
minnowguy

 

Posts: 85
Joined: 7/12/2005
From: St Louis
Status: offline
Confusion between Brit "regiment" and Yank "regiment" is and was really common.  Led to the US dropping "regiment" as an operational (as opposed to traditional) designation and replacing it with the more-or-less equivalent "brigade". 

(Except for the Cavalry regiments -- there always has to be an exception.  :) )

(in reply to Paul McNeely)
Post #: 1984
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 5/2/2010 4:28:25 PM   
Blackhorse


Posts: 1926
Joined: 8/20/2000
From: Eastern US
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: minnowguy
(Except for the Cavalry regiments -- there always has to be an exception.  :) )


Thanks for remembering!

_____________________________

WitP-AE -- US LCU & AI Stuff

Oddball: Why don't you knock it off with them negative waves? Why don't you dig how beautiful it is out here? Why don't you say something righteous and hopeful for a change?
Moriarty: Crap!

(in reply to minnowguy)
Post #: 1985
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 5/8/2010 1:42:33 AM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14493
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Andy,

Is this a (OOB) bug? This division is set to upgrade it's TOE and reduce itself to about regiment strength. It's part of a PBM so the censors redacted part of it before they would let me post it.



New picture coming...

Attachment (1)

< Message edited by witpqs -- 5/8/2010 1:43:34 AM >

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 1986
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 5/8/2010 1:45:29 AM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14493
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Here's the correct picture:






Attachment (1)

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1987
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 5/8/2010 9:50:51 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13790
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
No its not an error the Divison was converted to a training unit for jungle training

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1988
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 5/8/2010 7:24:12 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14493
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
Ah, thanks! I guess it won't be driving through to Hong Kong then.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1989
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 5/18/2010 8:08:04 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3296
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
Going by the thread title, I think this is the place for AI issues.

First, kudos to teh AI team as the game is very unpredictable. I am on my third restart playing teh Allies vs the AI. All three times I have seen different strategic moves by the AI. This is very nice as the game does not play the same even with multiple attempts.

First the good. The IJN CV force came calling in the Java Sea. Three separate CVTF from three different vectors to trap Allied shipping in a vise (one from the Kuching area, one down the Makassar Strait and one from the Ambon area). Very smart AI here and tehn the center TF slid into the IO just south of Java. This is exactly the type of thing a human would doto exact the highest shipping toll. Very nice.

Now the bad. The AI seems very aggressive in its land grab. I am in early Jan 1942 in the current game. The AI is sending a lot of forces toward PNG and the CentPac. The problem is these are virtually unsupported. I stopped the invasion of Canton Island with four S-Boats that happened to be at the right place at the right time (they were transitting to Oz). It appeared to be a small unit (SNLF?) on three small LB's. I was able to rip some units apart off PNG with the RAN/RNZN cruisers too. It seems like the AI is putting all its power into the PI/SRA and trying to head south and east on a shoestring. Of note after Canton Island the AI took Baker Island about 5 days later.

Lastly teh Ugly. The AI likes to divide its carrier strenght and it just cost it last night. I was using Lex, Big E, and Sara to escort a convoy to Midway just in case the sneaky AI was lurking. To my satisfaction the PBY's out of Midway spotted a IJN CVTF when I was one day out. I sent my CV's to the east and sank Soyru and Zuikoku (at least I thik I did as FOW tells me I got Kaga but the combat replay said Zuikoku all thru). Sara will be in the yard for nearly a year but the other two CV's were not even attacked. I then sank the measly four DD escort the next turn. I lingered for a turn or two then sent my CV's back towards PH. One turn later the PBY's picked up a SCTF. I moved my CV's back into position and have been pounding a SCTF with two BB's and two AMPH convoys for two turns now. And tHey keep coming.

I guess my question is there a tactical withdraw routine where the AI recognizes that pressing on after his CV's are dead is not a great idea? Also the very pitiful escort for the IJN CVTF made it very easy to kill. Lastly the whole dividing CV's up some much thing? If I had waited just a few more days, it would have been four USN CV's to two. I like the whole aggressive AI thing but it seems to be a little too willing to give the Allied player local superiority when it doesn't have to do it that way. I mean a Midway invasion should be a big time op in my mind even early in the war.

BTW, stock scenario Dec 8 start with historical AI setting.



_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 1990
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 5/19/2010 3:08:09 PM   
mariandavid

 

Posts: 224
Joined: 5/22/2008
Status: offline
JWilkinson:

On the British system; note that the examples you cited are very uncommon - it was rare for anyone to say "2nd Para Regiment". The normal usage of the two examples would be '2nd Para' and 2nd Tank' (note though that is in books - when soldiers are speaking it would be '2 Para' or '2 Tank'. The 'regiment' word is only correctly used when the complete and full designation is used as in 'Second Battalion Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry' - in turn abbreviated as '2nd Ox and Bucks' in books or '2 OB' for soldiers

In fact when it comes to infantry (ie multi-battalion regiments) the UK and US systems are identical as is the wording (eg 2nd 16th Inf for the latter). The true confusion comes with single component (battalion?) regiments - such as the cavalry. Much more to the point with WitP the Indian Army used the same system eg '2 Sikh', '2 2G' in soldier talk, but '2nd Sikh' and '2nd 2nd Gurkha' or '2/2GR' in history books.

(in reply to vettim89)
Post #: 1991
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 5/20/2010 1:47:54 AM   
Rankorian


Posts: 81
Joined: 4/19/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: minnowguy

Confusion between Brit "regiment" and Yank "regiment" is and was really common.  Led to the US dropping "regiment" as an operational (as opposed to traditional) designation and replacing it with the more-or-less equivalent "brigade". 




Wow, you just made my evening. Part of my aversion to doing modern SIMs is that I did not understand the term "brigade". From WW2 Europe games, the Regiment is probably the most awkward of unit. Most games are either set at Batalion and under, or Division and over.

I still think in "Division" terms, and the concept of Regiments/Brigades as a basic fighting unit still confuses me--but at least now I understand how the terminology conversion came to pass.

Thanks!

On the original topic, early turns as IJN and the AI, and I find the Allied ground troops....aggressive. But I think that is appropriate, from an AI design decision. It gives the person playing against the AI the "OMG, I am about to be overrun" excitement, while the FOW keeps the human player from seeing the true picture.

The most famous other-way-to-do-it was CC3. There, if you were the defender, and the AI attacker lost a couple of units, the AI went defensive....and....since the human was too week to counter-attack....nothing....happened.

Of course, that can be overdone. If the AI does not garrison major bases--even a token force with FOW can make the human mis-judge, that would possibly not be optimal

(in reply to minnowguy)
Post #: 1992
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 5/21/2010 7:58:49 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5108
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

For years, I thought many British combat units called themselves "regiments" when they were really "battalions" - but I think I finally figured out - this isn't really the case.

When the Brits say "2nd Para Regt" for example - this is "short hand" for "2nd Battalion of the Parachute Regiment". Or like "2nd RTR" - is "2nd Battalion of the Royal Tank Regiment". It is just the abbreviation system that confuses some of us into thinking the Brits are calling their battalions - regiments.

Now for AT units or Engineer units - the "regiment" is a "battalion" idea seems to be real - but for infantry and armour - I think it is just an abbreviation thingy.

However, I do recall some old SPI games that showed all the "2RTR" type units with the regiment III size indicator - clearly this was wrong!




Except,

In WW2 it was 2nd Parachute Bn as "The Parachute Regiment" had not been born,your understanding is correct for current understanding.
Plus, and a Brit Tanker could confirm this, it was 2nd Royal Tank Regiment, not 2nd Bn, Royal Tank Regiment.
Wiki says:
In the nineteenth-century (and before) British Army, regiments of infantry raised several battalions, which were often deployed separately. This practice remained into the modern era—in the First World War, it was common to see twenty or more battalions with a single regimental title. However, this practice did not hold for the cavalry regiments, which traditionally were only of limited size; in the modern era, this meant that each regiment would only constitute one battalion.

As a result, it became traditional for a battalion-level unit of cavalry to be referred
to as a "regiment". This was not as confusing as it may seem, since where other armies would use "regiment" for a unit of two to four battalions, the British Army used "brigade". Hence, an infantry brigade could consist of three battalions of infantry, but a cavalry brigade of equivalent size would have three regiments.

In the inter-war period, the British Army began to mechanise, with cavalry regiments giving up their horses in favour of armoured cars or light tanks. (The first regiment to do so was the 11th Hussars, in 1928; the last the Royal Scots Greys in 1941). As a result, it became common to refer to any armoured unit as a "regiment" rather than a "battalion"—the 11th Hussars were not merely an armoured-car battalion, but the whole of the regiment. In 1945, this usage became formal; all armoured battalions were henceforth referred to as regiments.

The Royal Tank Regiment is itself a regiment of the British Army, part of the Royal Armoured Corps. However, as a result of the above, both its "battalions" are formally titled regiments. This can cause some confusion, with the regiment currently being composed of two regiments.


Dont worry, even Nafziger has made a mess of the British System.

Basically, a British Regiment, for example The Rifle Brigade(Prince Consorts Own), would have 1 or 2 Bns during peacetime and expand in wartime from Territorial Army and war raised units, The Rifle Brigade formed 17 battalions for service in WW2.

So now we have Battalions, Regiments and Brigades of the same unit, why bother to sort it all out

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 1993
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 5/21/2010 8:24:17 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5108
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
A case for a rethink.

5th British Infantry Division should be reinstated to the OOB.

Vanilla AE had 5th British Infantry Division arrive at Mombasa but as a restricted unit so it was unusable.

In Real Life, 5th Div was one of the most travelled Divisions of the British Army, it served in France, UK, India, Iraq, Persia, Syria, Egypt, Sicily, Italy, Palestine & North West Europe.  In addition its 13th Brigade served on Madagascar for about 2 months 15th Brigade went to Norway in 1940.

According to Orders of Battle by HF Joslen (similar to Stantons US Army works), 5th Division arrived in India (I believe Bombay) on 21/5/42 and left by sea on 20/8/42.  Details for Brigades were  13 Brigade 2/6/42 to 19/8/42, 15 Brigade 21/5/42 to 12/9/42 and 17 Brigade 22/6/42 to 13/9/42.

While only in theatre for 3 months, and never being released to the front the unit would have provided security in a period where japanese expansion was still occurring and when India is in revolt, also not shown in game.

Its release was after Coral Sea, Midway and the Guadalcanal landings which effectively stopped the japanese advance.

But in game this is often still a time where the JFB is on the march, but because of history we dont even see this Division, even as a restricted (and even tied down as a garrison) unit. However on the West Coast of the USA, we get similar units, only in place as their historical training base was on the West Coast, but never used in the game as they are automatically removed on their posting to Europe. Why a different approach to the same problem?

As an AFB, I see more and more attempts to fit the Allied Air, Land & Sea units to historical limits, while the JFB gets to alter his Air & Sea production to extreme levels.

Give the Allied Player access to more units, it can be at horrendous cost in PP if needed, but at least allow some ahistorical improvement at a cost.


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 1994
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 5/21/2010 2:20:18 PM   
J Boomer


Posts: 262
Joined: 11/5/2004
From: Edmonton Alberta
Status: offline
One thing to take in mind for Commonwealth contries is that a Regiment is not an operational unit neccessarily. In Canadian use for example to this day infantry regiments will have more than one Bn. However those Bns are part of a Brigade, Rgt HQ is not an operational HQ at all. During the WWII my old reserve Regiment had three Bns. These Bns were in different Brigades and only two of them deployed overseas and not both of them at the same time.

_____________________________

Jordan S. Bujtas
Deas Gu Cath


(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 1995
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 5/22/2010 1:31:21 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5108
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
Dont forget the British Army has Corps which are actually Regiments which have Battalions which get formed into Brigades and Divisions.

(e.g. The Kings Royal Rifle Corps)


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to J Boomer)
Post #: 1996
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 5/22/2010 5:59:50 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13790
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
5th Brit I swithered on not sure either way in reality there is no recognition of the threat posed to Near East Command in this period i.e. pre Alamein and Stalingrad. I sorta rationalised to myself that 5th British wasnt required as the invasion reinforcements kick in if the Japanese get to frisky and for a three month period it fell into the to minor a period to include especially without borders being implemented and the risk of abuse

< Message edited by Andy Mac -- 5/22/2010 6:01:33 AM >

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 1997
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 6/6/2010 12:16:10 AM   
Halsey


Posts: 4916
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Indianapolis Indiana USA
Status: offline
1st NZ Army Tank Bde.
I really like having this unit, but wasn't it in the Med the entire war?

Is this unit being confused with another?

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 1998
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 6/6/2010 1:04:19 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13790
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Nope it was broken up to provide cadre for 4th NZ Armoured Bde but it was present in NZ in 42

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 1999
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 6/6/2010 1:11:11 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13790
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
http://kiwisinarmour.hobbyvista.com/

This is a fantastic site if you want to know more

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2000
RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread - 6/6/2010 2:58:52 AM   
Halsey


Posts: 4916
Joined: 2/7/2004
From: Indianapolis Indiana USA
Status: offline
Cool site, thanks...

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2001
RE: IJ 16th Division - 6/6/2010 10:23:05 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13790
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Data Gathered to this point

(in reply to EasilyConfused)
Post #: 2002
RE: IJ 16th Division - 6/7/2010 1:04:05 AM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1919
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
Question on Allied pools and TOE upgrades, etc.

If I understand correctly, when a <blah blah>infantry squad 42 upgrades to a <blah blah> infantry squad 43, the LCU gets the 43 squads, and the upgraded squads are returned to the pool as 43 (upgraded) squads.

So far, so good.

But 42 squads in the pool don't seem to ever upgrade to 43 squads. Is that correct?

In which case as allied, it would seem you have to make sure you use up all of the xyz squads in the pool before the xyz+1 becomes available. If you pull them into an LCU, they will automatically upgrade (over a period of time as upgrades roll through the units, once enough have been added to the pool to prime the pump, so to speak). But if you don't get them out of the pools before they obsolete, they are essentially lost forever.

Is that fundamentally correct, or am I missing something?

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2003
China Area(R) HQ - 8/10/2010 11:20:02 PM   
Gormadoc

 

Posts: 18
Joined: 3/18/2008
Status: offline
Tried searching the forum for this but i got no hits, so i suppose it has not been up yet.

In korea in scenario 001 there are three static base units:

Rashin Special Base force (located in Rashin next to soviet border hex 110 46).
Chinkai Naval Base Force (located in Chinhae, south Korea hex 103 54).
Ryojun Special Base Force (located in Port Arthur, hex 99 44).

These three static base forces are attached to China Area(R) command which seems to be impossible to change.

The Ryojun Fort CD unit also located in Port Arthur belongs to Kwantung Army(R).
The Rashin Fort CD unit located in Rashin are attached to Korea Army(R)

Are these three static units attached to China Area(R) on purpose or can i assume its a bug and make the necesary changes to scen 001?

EDIT: Looking more into this in the editor reveals that all the units attached to China Area(R) are actually attached to China Area Fleet HQ, which actually makes sense since these units are all belonging to IJN.

A minor naming issue i gues, a bug with the suffix "49 - Fleet" not being correctly shown ingame.



< Message edited by Gormadoc -- 8/11/2010 12:11:54 AM >

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 2004
RE: China Area(R) HQ - 8/22/2010 11:48:03 AM   
Itdepends

 

Posts: 692
Joined: 12/12/2005
Status: offline
Unit 6186 Freemantle Fortress, Coastal Defense Unit.

Freemantle is spelt "Fremantle" - no double "e". There is a "Freemantle" in New South Wales (eastern Australia)- but it's not the one in W.A. There was also a coastal defence battery on Rottnest island- just off the coast from Perth and Garden Island- but from the looks of the "Freemantle" battery- I'm guessing they're combined in game as a single CD unit.

(in reply to Gormadoc)
Post #: 2005
Supply Problem? - 8/22/2010 2:24:10 PM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 682
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
There seems to be a major supply problem.

I had all chinese cities south and east of the major river running south of Nanchung. I had troops stationed on the roads accross the river as well as strategic road junctions within the area. I isolated Chuhsien with the hopes that it would be out of supply and easy to take. Chuhsien has resources but no light industry. What I found out 3 weeks later from my opponent, after daily bombardments and air bombings, is that the base was at zero supplies but the troops were fully supplied each day for 3 weeks from the closet chinese supply base which was 240 miles away. That tells me that supplies moved overland, accross a major river, around my troops stationed on roads, through rough terrain over 240 miles every day.

Read PzBs AAR. Allies are launching a major attack into Burma in 42 accross 120 miles of jungle, no roads, and not nearly sufficient air transport to make it happen. The combination of the massive land attack and using 4E bombers, which seem to be invulnerable to jap fighters is negating all japanese early war advantages, which are naval and air power.

It looks like supplies can move any distance through non-road, non-base hexes, with the only impact being wastage. If true, that's a problem. Katherine and Derby both have limits they can draw, 300 and 100 respectively, and that's across roads. Same principle should be applied to non-road, non-base hexes, further reduced by range to supply source (base, a road in communication with base, or a railpoint), terrain and weather, if achievable within the code base. Moving supplies through the jungle during a monsoon would be extremely difficult at best. Moving supplies daily accross 120 miles of jungle with no roads would be impossible.

If this issue has already been posted and responded to by the devs, please let me know. There's 67 pages of posts on this thread and I haven't had time to go through them all.

(in reply to Itdepends)
Post #: 2006
RE: Supply Problem? - 8/22/2010 6:03:39 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 13790
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Please dont quote PZB's game I am his opponent and the former land team lead - he has no idea of my supply status or of the efforts I am going to and I dont want to know his.

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 2007
RE: Supply Problem? - 8/22/2010 6:40:48 PM   
witpqs

 

Posts: 14493
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: vicberg

There seems to be a major supply problem.

I had all chinese cities south and east of the major river running south of Nanchung. I had troops stationed on the roads accross the river as well as strategic road junctions within the area. I isolated Chuhsien with the hopes that it would be out of supply and easy to take. Chuhsien has resources but no light industry. What I found out 3 weeks later from my opponent, after daily bombardments and air bombings, is that the base was at zero supplies but the troops were fully supplied each day for 3 weeks from the closet chinese supply base which was 240 miles away. That tells me that supplies moved overland, accross a major river, around my troops stationed on roads, through rough terrain over 240 miles every day.

Read PzBs AAR. Allies are launching a major attack into Burma in 42 accross 120 miles of jungle, no roads, and not nearly sufficient air transport to make it happen. The combination of the massive land attack and using 4E bombers, which seem to be invulnerable to jap fighters is negating all japanese early war advantages, which are naval and air power.

It looks like supplies can move any distance through non-road, non-base hexes, with the only impact being wastage. If true, that's a problem. Katherine and Derby both have limits they can draw, 300 and 100 respectively, and that's across roads. Same principle should be applied to non-road, non-base hexes, further reduced by range to supply source (base, a road in communication with base, or a railpoint), terrain and weather, if achievable within the code base. Moving supplies through the jungle during a monsoon would be extremely difficult at best. Moving supplies daily accross 120 miles of jungle with no roads would be impossible.

If this issue has already been posted and responded to by the devs, please let me know. There's 67 pages of posts on this thread and I haven't had time to go through them all.


Much of what you are saying is incorrect. There are limits - any distance, any terrain is just not so. It is extremely difficult to move supplies overland to NW Australia.

Units in a base are only allowed to draw supply from that base. This IMO is a problem with the supply routine, BTW. But that's how it is, so when you say units at a base had full supply but the base had 0 supplies, that tells me that the base in question 1) did have a supply path (no, supplies do not hop over enemy units) and 2) the terrain-distance was short enough and supplies available plentiful enough to keep those units in supply. If you and your opponent are certain otherwise then start posting save games along with detailed descriptions in tech support and I am sure they will look at it. The team is great and very responsive (and all volunteers, BTW).

There are a few tweaks that might help the supply routines but the things you have mentioned are not among them.

A word of caution - you are citing a players complaints/postings in his AAR about his opponents supply situation. As Andy says that violates the confidentiality of the AAR, but also there is the point how does a player know his opponent's supply situation? I have seen players actually complain about their opponents bountiful supply at some location when they were dead wrong about the facts and giving themselves heartburn for nothing. FOW is big in this game, and as supply is a critical factor you do not want your opponent to have full knowledge of your supply situation. So when you see a player post about their opponent's supply situation, 90% of the time they are surmising what they think is going on because the only way they can know is 1) their opponent tells them or 2) they capture a base and there are tons of supplies present. And quite often their assessment is as much a product of what they fear is going on as anything else.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 8/22/2010 6:42:19 PM >

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 2008
RE: Supply Problem? - 8/22/2010 8:13:29 PM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 682
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
Thank you for the caution. I wondered if I should have been more clear referencing PzB AAR. I'm referencing his AAR not because of anything he said, but because I'm questioning the supply rules based on my experience with it and reading his AAR. I did ask MY opponent about his supply situation and he did tell me that his troops remaining in supply every day.

That's why I'm posting in this thread vs. others, like tech support or the general forum. I'd like to know what's happening. I'd like to know if this truly is a problem, because it doesn't feel right. I understand there has to be a positive supply value. How is that calced? In my situation, the closet Chinese base was 8 hexes away. I "owned" every hex around Chuhsien, every road and had troops stationed in strategic junctions. Does supply move through enemy owned hexes? If so, then that adjusts my strategy significantly. Even without owned hexes, the positive supply value still seems a bit high because of the distance and off road that the supply lines must have taken and the strategic junctions I did have troops stationed at.

Please don't get me wrong. Living with it is something I'm more than willing to do. Understanding how it works is the goal. Understanding if the devs see something as a problem and are going to work on it helps also.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 2009
RE: Supply Problem? - 8/22/2010 8:26:24 PM   
vicberg

 

Posts: 682
Joined: 4/19/2008
Status: offline
And Andy, I apologize. I didn't realize you were the thread moderator before I posted. I immediately jumped to end of thread. Yes, it was inappropriate for me to mention anything about your game in this thread.

(in reply to vicberg)
Post #: 2010
Page:   <<   < prev  65 66 [67] 68 69   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Admirals Edition Land Thread Page: <<   < prev  65 66 [67] 68 69   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

0.139