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: Emergency Reinforcements--WC

 
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: Emergency Reinforcements--WC Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Emergency Reinforcements--WC - 11/13/2010 1:14:15 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xxzard

After seeing this, I think I have changed my mind on playing out a vs AI game trying to take the WC. It is clear that even versus an incompetent opponent, the most I could expect to take would be perhaps the Seattle/Vancouver area. The amount of reinforcements that come in is just massive, and I just can't see any way to break through that many tank divisions, even bringing almost the whole Phillipines and Manchurian armies.

On the plus side, this testing will surely save me a lot of time! Thanks.


Well, based on my last set of tests, you CAN take Vancouver. But not Seattle (probably.) I'd go for it agaisnt the AI. Think of the strat bombing you can do! Boeing in Seattle in flames!!!

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Xxzard)
Post #: 31
RE: Emergency Reinforcements--WC - 12/29/2010 1:07:51 AM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline
Hi,

Thank you for your thorough research of the trigger lines, that's very useful.

However, while browsing the editor I have noticed a small detail that must be interesting in the case of the WC reinforcements : with the exception of the Canadian 2nd Army Tank Brigade, all the new LCUs are permanently restricted (not surprisingly...), but more importantly : they are static.

Thus, as SLC has only meager supply sources (120 light industry and 20 heavy industry), and can be isolated from the East Coast...  I guess they're a paper tiger.  They won't move, they're vulnerable to a siege, and they don't block the rail to the East Coast (however I don't know if the IJA could use that railline).

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 32
RE: Emergency Reinforcements--WC - 12/29/2010 2:53:39 AM   
Nomad


Posts: 4368
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Northern Rockies
Status: offline
When I read the editor manual, it said that static attached units could not move by air or sea. I am not completely sure, but it would appear they can march, but not sail on the Great Salt Lake, or fly by transport.

_____________________________



Don't ask me any questions, apparently I know nothing about WitP:AE

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 33
RE: Emergency Reinforcements--WC - 12/29/2010 2:54:36 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

Hi,

Thank you for your thorough research of the trigger lines, that's very useful.

However, while browsing the editor I have noticed a small detail that must be interesting in the case of the WC reinforcements : with the exception of the Canadian 2nd Army Tank Brigade, all the new LCUs are permanently restricted (not surprisingly...), but more importantly : they are static.

Thus, as SLC has only meager supply sources (120 light industry and 20 heavy industry), and can be isolated from the East Coast...  I guess they're a paper tiger.  They won't move, they're vulnerable to a siege, and they don't block the rail to the East Coast (however I don't know if the IJA could use that railline).



I checked, and the units in CONUS have the Static Attached box checked. This means, per the Editor Manual: "Static Attached units may not move by air or sea unless the HQ is changed. Even when HQ’s are changed subordinate units need to be individually acquired via PP’s."

So, they can move around on the ground, but you can't ship them away without paying PPs. They aren't stuck in SLC.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Ambassador)
Post #: 34
RE: Emergency Reinforcements--WC - 12/29/2010 3:28:40 AM   
Blackhorse


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

ORIGINAL: Ambassador

However, while browsing the editor I have noticed a small detail that must be interesting in the case of the WC reinforcements : with the exception of the Canadian 2nd Army Tank Brigade, all the new LCUs are permanently restricted (not surprisingly...), but more importantly : they are static.

Thus, as SLC has only meager supply sources (120 light industry and 20 heavy industry), and can be isolated from the East Coast...  I guess they're a paper tiger.  They won't move, they're vulnerable to a siege, and they don't block the rail to the East Coast (however I don't know if the IJA could use that railline).



In the words of Inigo Montoya "I do not think that word means what you think it does."

The West Coast reinforcements are "static attached" (a HQ-command status) not "static." They can still move after they arrive.


A little background on the philosophy behind the West Coast reinforcements in AE:

1. Yes, if the Japanese invade the West Coast, its the end of the "Europe First" strategy -- at least until after the invasion is repelled. It is one thing to to put MacArthur on a shoestring in New Guinea because reinforcements are going to North Africa and Siciliy. But no U.S. government (that intends to remain the government) would let San Francisco, Seattle or Los Angeles fall while troops continue to flow to the Mediterranean.

2. The reinforcements, coupled with the permanently restricted units on-map, are intended to demonstrate just how impossibly difficult a Japanese invasion would be -- even against the inept AI.

3. Most of the forces necessary to resist/defeat an invasion are already on the map. Until early 1943, the US will usually have a full division (permanently restricted, or waiting for enough PPs to deploy) available in each of Seattle, San Francisco and Los Angeles plus a lot of supporting artillery, engineers, cavalry and tank destroyers.

4. In addition, AE includes the divisions that trained on the West Coast before they were deployed to the ETO. At any one time there will be 1-3 permanently restricted infantry divisions training in Oregon, and 1 or 2 Armor Divisions at San Luis Obispo. (And in the event of an invasion, the II Armored Corps HQ arrives in San Luis Obispo).

5. On top of that, armor brigades and divisions from across the country regularly rotated through California for desert training in the Mojave Desert. Ergo, the "Provisional Tank Brigade" that pops up in the event of an invasion.

6. If the Japanese actually invade, the only other US LCU reinforcements is the 4-Division II Corps that starts in Salt Lake City -- representing the time it would take to mobilize these forces and get them from the South and East to the West Coast. I don't think that anyone would suggest that temporarily diverting four divisions to stop an invasion of the US mainland would be an overreaction.

7. The "convoy" (one of AndyMac's most ingenious additions to AE, IMHO) disbands a few days after it arrives, and the devices go into the Allied pools. This represents the flow of men and weapons that had been designated for Europe, but would now go to flesh out or upgrade the West Coast units that had to drive the Japanese back into the sea. It will be near-impossible for the IJA to out-attrition US and Canadian forces on the West Coast.

8. It was intended that Fredenhall command the II Corps in Salt Lake City, and Patton the II Armored Corps in San Luis Obispo, but with the current code we couldn't get them to arrive only in the event of an invasion. They are in the leader database. I believe random leaders will command these units when they arrive.

9. If the Japanese invade after 6/43 the invasion reinforement divisions will have different names, as the original four divisions would already be in the MTO.

10. Yes, this is probably way too much attention to detail for an invasion that should never happen in a game -- but one of the reasons it should never happen is because the US and Canadian forces are modelled (reasonably) historically. In stock WitP it was way too easy for the Japanese to contemplate attacking the West Coast, because there were not enough slots to include all the forces that were garrisoning the West Coast.

11. FWIW, if the Japanese have been incredibly successful, and are contemplating an attack against the West Coast, they should consider a raid on the south -- if left underdefended Los Angeles and San Diego might briefly fall, and that would take a chuck out of US aircraft production. That's about the only positive results I can imagine from a direct Japanese attack on the West Coast that might come remotely close to justifying the risk/losses.

12. IIRC, the invasion trigger is the mainland West Coast from Vancouver south. I don't think any of the islands trigger the reaction.



< Message edited by Blackhorse -- 12/29/2010 3:38:56 AM >


_____________________________

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 Ambassador)
Post #: 35
RE: Emergency Reinforcements--WC - 12/29/2010 2:14:22 PM   
Ambassador

 

Posts: 694
Joined: 1/11/2008
From: Brussels, Belgium
Status: offline
Thank you, I indeed didn't know the exact meaning of "static".  That's a lot better.


I understand the philosophy of this procedure, but I would have preferred additional troops in case of an invasion of Hawaii or mainland Alaska, which is a much more probable occurrence than an invasion of continental US.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 36
RE: Emergency Reinforcements--WC - 12/29/2010 7:30:58 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
Blackhorse, thanks very much for this deep inside look at the WC reinforcement philosophy and development.

One slight correction, the islands off LA/San Diego DO trigger the package. The islands off southern and mid-BC don't.

Quesiton, since the trigger line is south of Vancouver, was it tested/gamed in development to try a Canada-based strat bombing campaign? The Seattle area in particular has some rich targets for cheap VPs, and the Allied aircraft pools would be at regular game levels, without the "SLC convoy" boost. It has been discussed in at least one AAR that the Japanese might take and hold Coal Harbour, probably springboarding off a logistics base in an invaded Aleutians, and conduct strat bombing of northern CONUS. Cold Harbour might be defended by the Japanese with some average naval investments--mines, subs, and some lighter surface combatants--long enough to do some damage and to take the Sea-Tac area out of the logistics war.

Alternatively, a land campaign using the RR network from an invaded Prince Rupert, through Kamloops to Calgary and Nelson, might provide interlocking LBA bases and get IJA bombers into easier range of both Seattle and Spokane, without triggering the package. The incursion need not be permanent to do a lot of VP damage before US troops could react that far north.

Just wondering if this was considered, and why the trigger line didn't include Canada, and maybe mainland Alaska for that matter.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 37
RE: Emergency Reinforcements--WC - 12/29/2010 7:51:34 PM   
Blackhorse


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ambassador
Thank you, I indeed didn't know the exact meaning of "static".  That's a lot better.


I understand the philosophy of this procedure, but I would have preferred additional troops in case of an invasion of Hawaii or mainland Alaska, which is a much more probable occurrence than an invasion of continental US.


I sympathise, as I usually play the Allies, too. I'd like additional troops if Alaska or Hawaii were invaded, but tprobably they would not have been forthcoming.

The forces in-game ought to be enough to hold Hawaii. Historically, the U.S. built up a garrison of 3-4 divisions, plus another division-equivalent of regimental and battalion-sized units, and kept them on the Hawaiian islands well into 1943. Many allied players keep a smaller garrison (1 division each on Oahu and Hawaii) and shouldn't be surprised if those forces are defeated. Including LCU reinforcements for an invasion of Hawaii encourages and rewards reckless gameplay by the Allies.

Mainland Alaska is a strategic cul-de-sac for the Japanese. There are no overland connections between Alaska and the rest of the continent until the Alaska-Canadian Highway is built later in the war. What few raw materials can be secured from continental Alaska would hardly be worth the cost of the occupation. The only strategic value for the Japanese are in the good ports and harbors -- and the best are on the islands at Kodiak, Dutch Harbor and Adak. The U.S. Joint Chiefs were willing to cut their losses in Alaska if they had to; Admiral King was even opposed to diverting resources to the ALCAN Highway, arguing that he could guarantee that the US would have naval superiority and could retake any lost Alaskan posessions before an all-weather road could be completed (1944).

And if either Alaska or Hawaii are conquered by the Japanese, the biggest challenge won't be getting enough troops together to retake them -- it will be building up an adequate naval and air force to safely get an Amphibious force ashore.

_____________________________

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 Ambassador)
Post #: 38
RE: Emergency Reinforcements--WC - 12/29/2010 8:10:01 PM   
Blackhorse


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

Blackhorse, thanks very much for this deep inside look at the WC reinforcement philosophy and development.

One slight correction, the islands off LA/San Diego DO trigger the package. The islands off southern and mid-BC don't.

Quesiton, since the trigger line is south of Vancouver, was it tested/gamed in development to try a Canada-based strat bombing campaign? The Seattle area in particular has some rich targets for cheap VPs, and the Allied aircraft pools would be at regular game levels, without the "SLC convoy" boost. It has been discussed in at least one AAR that the Japanese might take and hold Coal Harbour, probably springboarding off a logistics base in an invaded Aleutians, and conduct strat bombing of northern CONUS. Cold Harbour might be defended by the Japanese with some average naval investments--mines, subs, and some lighter surface combatants--long enough to do some damage and to take the Sea-Tac area out of the logistics war.

Alternatively, a land campaign using the RR network from an invaded Prince Rupert, through Kamloops to Calgary and Nelson, might provide interlocking LBA bases and get IJA bombers into easier range of both Seattle and Spokane, without triggering the package. The incursion need not be permanent to do a lot of VP damage before US troops could react that far north.

Just wondering if this was considered, and why the trigger line didn't include Canada, and maybe mainland Alaska for that matter.



Bullwinkle,

In retrospect, Vancouver probably should have been included as part of the "trigger." And if Japanese ground forces were ever threatening Calgary (!), in real life, that would have triggered a response as well. My previous post re:Alaska applies to the Prince Rupert area and the nearby islands -- it is hard today to imagine just how rugged, remote, unsettled and un-infrastructured this part of the world was in 1941.

We did several runs to make sure that the invasion triggers and AI scripts fired as they were supposed to, but we did not test a "stand-off bombing" campaign as you described. Certainly, in that case, a lot of US and Commonwealth squadrons would have been rushed to the front to counter them. But we couldn't design a response for every contingency.

So if the Japanese ever want to consider invading the West Coast, your "Great White North" strat bombing campaign is the best idea I've heard so far.

But even so, I'd rather defend against it, than attack. Even without the II Corps invasion reinforcement or the convoy pool reinforcements, the US has several permanently restricted division that they can rail up to Canada to counter any invasion. Perhaps if the Japanese only took the offshore islands . . .


_____________________________

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 Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 39
RE: Emergency Reinforcements--WC - 12/29/2010 9:40:39 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Blackhorse

In retrospect, Vancouver probably should have been included as part of the "trigger." And if Japanese ground forces were ever threatening Calgary (!), in real life, that would have triggered a response as well. My previous post re:Alaska applies to the Prince Rupert area and the nearby islands -- it is hard today to imagine just how rugged, remote, unsettled and un-infrastructured this part of the world was in 1941.

We did several runs to make sure that the invasion triggers and AI scripts fired as they were supposed to, but we did not test a "stand-off bombing" campaign as you described. Certainly, in that case, a lot of US and Commonwealth squadrons would have been rushed to the front to counter them. But we couldn't design a response for every contingency.

So if the Japanese ever want to consider invading the West Coast, your "Great White North" strat bombing campaign is the best idea I've heard so far.

But even so, I'd rather defend against it, than attack. Even without the II Corps invasion reinforcement or the convoy pool reinforcements, the US has several permanently restricted division that they can rail up to Canada to counter any invasion. Perhaps if the Japanese only took the offshore islands . . .



My mother lived in Kamloops in the late 1930s (my grandfather came over from England to participate in the Klondike gold rush and stayed), and I've seen some photos. Very rugged, yes, but good railroads.

I think a Japanese drive into the heart of Canada as far as Calgary/Nelson would catch many allied players napping, but they could react semi-quickly by strat moving to meet it. The question might be how much bombing the Japanese could do before the reaction go to the war. I think it would be more like a continental hit & run, and probably not worth the risk.

A Coal Harbour air campaign would be a far better risk/reward proposition. Also, the idea was our good friend Alfred's, not mine. The naval war there, if the Japanese had excellent bases at Dutch and Adak, could be interesting, especially in late 1942 before the USN has the carriers to compete. Coal H. is very hard to take overland from Victoria, and just far enough from the major air bases to be hard to interdict. OTOH, it has a very poor port for the Japanese to try to force an air campaign through.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 40
RE: Emergency Reinforcements--WC - 12/30/2010 2:54:27 PM   
Blackhorse


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

[snip] Still disappointed by the performance of the CD unit. The one source I consulted listed the forces at SF on 7 December 1941 as 6th CD command, three CD BTN (not one), plus two NG RGT's.


You will find that all the coastal defense guns in the San Francisco Bay Area are included in the "Harbor Defense" CD unit. During the design of AE, each nationality was assigned a fixed # of LCU OOB slots -- so one of the slot-saving techniques was to roll all of the American CD units in each port/base into a single unit.

In theory, a single unit might be easier to disrupt/suppress than 3 separate regiments. When we play-tested, it didn't seem to make a difference. Sometimes the CD guns rip up BBs, sometimes they complete disrupt the landing LCUs, and sometimes they just don't seem to fire very much.



_____________________________

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 vettim89)
Post #: 41
RE: Emergency Reinforcements--WC - 12/30/2010 11:14:12 PM   
Amoral

 

Posts: 263
Joined: 7/28/2010
Status: offline
I'm very glad for all your testing, Bullwinkle58. Blackhorse's insights into the design are great too.

(in reply to Blackhorse)
Post #: 42
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Emergency Reinforcements--WC Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

0.109