Matrix Games Forums

A closer look at rockets in Space Program ManagerDeal of the Week - Pride of NationsA new update for Piercing Fortress EuropaNew screenshots for War in the West!Pike & Shot is now available!Server Maintenance Battle Academy 2 gets updated!Deal of the Week: Advanced Tactics Gold Ask Buzz Aldrin!Pike & Shot gets Release Date and Twitch Session!
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room!

 
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 >> The War Room >> A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/26/2010 11:52:35 PM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 851
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline
My PBEM opponent and I are wrapping up the Guadalcanal scenario and will be starting the Grand Campaign soon (and to all those who advised me at the outset on this game, yes, I got pimp-slapped). One of our considerations is the house rules we will play by. My question is this: almost all of the AARs I've read have a house rule that amphibious landings can only occur at bases or dot-hexes. We are curious why so many experienced players adopt this house rule. Does it aid in the balance of play, help the offense defense, Allies or Japanaese? All the world wonders!

Post #: 1
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/27/2010 12:16:36 AM   
USS America


Posts: 16187
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline
Well, I've not played a game using this house rule.  I can understand why some would justify it by saying that every hex on the map is not suitable for an amphibious landing and it's too much of a burden on the defender to guard every coastal hex.  I personally see nothing wrong with it.  If you land in the countryside, good luck getting enough supply ashore to keep your troops in beans and bullets.  It requires that much more effort, especially in shipping, to make the landing successful.  Just my opinion.  

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 2
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/27/2010 12:29:55 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8251
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
It's a holdover from WITP, where we didn't have the unloading restrictions that are incorporated into AE.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 3
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/27/2010 12:45:13 AM   
VSWG


Posts: 3432
Joined: 5/31/2006
From: Germany
Status: offline
IIRC there's no code for defensive fire against amphib landings in non-base hexes.

_____________________________


(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 4
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/27/2010 1:38:06 AM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 14035
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
I use it because there are enough bases to defend as it is. If we had to defend non-base hexes from invasions, there'd be no way to be able to do it.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 5
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/27/2010 5:19:00 AM   
Feltan


Posts: 1044
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America
... I personally see nothing wrong with it.  If you land in the countryside, good luck getting enough supply ashore to keep your troops in beans and bullets.  It requires that much more effort, especially in shipping, to make the landing successful.  Just my opinion.  



My opinion too!

Regards,
Feltan

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 6
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/27/2010 6:05:52 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 14923
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Feltan


quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America
... I personally see nothing wrong with it.  If you land in the countryside, good luck getting enough supply ashore to keep your troops in beans and bullets.  It requires that much more effort, especially in shipping, to make the landing successful.  Just my opinion.  



My opinion too!

Regards,
Feltan


There was also a thread where several developers posted - they considered the issue during AE development and landings at non-base/dot hexes are fine. The code handles it. And yes, there are consequences. For example, you can prep only for bases, so landings elsewhere result in a lot more losses during landing. There are others (as pointed out above).

(in reply to Feltan)
Post #: 7
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/27/2010 6:07:25 AM   
stuman


Posts: 3864
Joined: 9/14/2008
From: Elvis' Hometown
Status: offline
Because I said so !

That's what my dad always said.

_____________________________

" Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the War Room. " President Muffley


(in reply to Feltan)
Post #: 8
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/27/2010 12:39:57 PM   
DivePac88


Posts: 3115
Joined: 10/9/2008
From: Somewhere in the South Pacific.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: stuman

Because I said so !

That's what my dad always said.


Now don't you be throwing your toys around there young Stu!


_____________________________


When you see the Southern Cross, For the first time
You understand now, Why you came this way

(in reply to stuman)
Post #: 9
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/27/2010 4:34:32 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7164
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225

My PBEM opponent and I are wrapping up the Guadalcanal scenario and will be starting the Grand Campaign soon (and to all those who advised me at the outset on this game, yes, I got pimp-slapped). One of our considerations is the house rules we will play by. My question is this: almost all of the AARs I've read have a house rule that amphibious landings can only occur at bases or dot-hexes. We are curious why so many experienced players adopt this house rule. Does it aid in the balance of play, help the offense defense, Allies or Japanaese? All the world wonders!




When I've played, the rule has always been no landings in non-base (at least the dot) hexes.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 10
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/27/2010 5:30:30 PM   
USS America


Posts: 16187
Joined: 10/28/2002
From: Apex, NC, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225

My PBEM opponent and I are wrapping up the Guadalcanal scenario and will be starting the Grand Campaign soon (and to all those who advised me at the outset on this game, yes, I got pimp-slapped). One of our considerations is the house rules we will play by. My question is this: almost all of the AARs I've read have a house rule that amphibious landings can only occur at bases or dot-hexes. We are curious why so many experienced players adopt this house rule. Does it aid in the balance of play, help the offense defense, Allies or Japanaese? All the world wonders!




When I've played, the rule has always been no landings in non-base (at least the dot) hexes.


But, why Shark? Do you and your opponent(s) have a reason for using this HR?

_____________________________

Mike

"Good times will set you free" - Jimmy Buffett

"They need more rum punch" - Me


Artwork by The Amazing Dixie

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 11
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/27/2010 6:18:46 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5909
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

IIRC there's no code for defensive fire against amphib landings in non-base hexes.


Was this addressed in AE? Anyone know?

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to VSWG)
Post #: 12
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/27/2010 6:24:23 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 14923
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

quote:

ORIGINAL: VSWG

IIRC there's no code for defensive fire against amphib landings in non-base hexes.


Was this addressed in AE? Anyone know?


I don't know if there is defensive fire per se, but the developers were completely clear that they consider the code to handle non-base invasions. There is ample downside for the invading player. As far as defensive fire itself, the hexes are fairly large - how many large units would it take to make defenses that would cover the entire coastline?

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 13
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/27/2010 8:10:29 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7164
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: USS America


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7


quote:

ORIGINAL: pws1225

My PBEM opponent and I are wrapping up the Guadalcanal scenario and will be starting the Grand Campaign soon (and to all those who advised me at the outset on this game, yes, I got pimp-slapped). One of our considerations is the house rules we will play by. My question is this: almost all of the AARs I've read have a house rule that amphibious landings can only occur at bases or dot-hexes. We are curious why so many experienced players adopt this house rule. Does it aid in the balance of play, help the offense defense, Allies or Japanaese? All the world wonders!




When I've played, the rule has always been no landings in non-base (at least the dot) hexes.


But, why Shark? Do you and your opponent(s) have a reason for using this HR?


Couple of reasons. 1. We usually prefer to actually be able to defend/attack.

2. The more important...during WWII, you almost needed a pier to unload most of your equipment and supplies, especially early in the war. Unlike today were you can use VertRep, and have Helo's and LCACs for putting the troops ashore, when WWII started there were very few ships capable of true over the beach unloading...very little in the way of even RO-RO capability. Modern amphibious assaults are the results of experience gained over the 4 years of WWII.

And it just makes for a more interesting game when there is some risk involved with your landings.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to USS America)
Post #: 14
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/27/2010 10:43:43 PM   
Feltan


Posts: 1044
Joined: 12/5/2006
From: Kansas
Status: offline
Shark7,

Mr. Killer Fish -- I understand your point. However, this is one of those situations that may be self-limiting. I've never played with the HR that limits invasions to bases or dot hexes; however, after thinking about it, I don't think I've ever done an invasion at anything but a base or dot hex. The downside of such an operation has always prevented a decision to do so.

I did witness an opponent do this in New Guinea, near Port Moresby. It was a disaster for him. Strangled by lack of supply, when his trrops finally marched overland to thier objective they were (easily) repulsed and languished in the jungle; a training target for new Allied bomber squadrons.

For me, and perhaps me alone, a HR like this is similar to one saying "No Allied carrier strikes on Port Arthur in 1942." OK. If you really feal that strongly on the issue I could go with such an HR. Not because it makes sense to me, but because I probably wouldn't consider it anyway.

Regards,
Feltan

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 15
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/27/2010 11:09:00 PM   
Spartan3056


Posts: 11
Joined: 8/28/2010
Status: offline
I may not be an old pro at this, but I have to disagree w/Shark 7. The idea is not to defend everything. It is and was an impossiblilty.

The goals were/are to take the ports, almost always land to the side and attack. Sometimes the landings were close to the ports, sometimes not.

Dieppe proved the cost of of a direct amphimbious assualt on a port.

In my PBEMs not using this house rule has not skewed the game so far.

And as mentioned so far, there are lots of risks not directly attacking a base or dot hex.

Spartan3056


(in reply to Feltan)
Post #: 16
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/27/2010 11:55:07 PM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1925
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
The other thing to watch out for is that even a token force can cut off a retreat path. So if a couple of squads are unloaded across the retreat path for some forces, it has an effect far greater than a couple squads should have. Of course, there are other HRs or understandings one might have to avoid stuff like this.

(in reply to Spartan3056)
Post #: 17
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/28/2010 1:19:47 AM   
witpqs


Posts: 14923
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad

The other thing to watch out for is that even a token force can cut off a retreat path. So if a couple of squads are unloaded across the retreat path for some forces, it has an effect far greater than a couple squads should have. Of course, there are other HRs or understandings one might have to avoid stuff like this.


Yup, nothing to do with where to land, just a "don't be gamey" agreement.

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 18
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/28/2010 4:12:11 AM   
Shark7


Posts: 7164
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad

The other thing to watch out for is that even a token force can cut off a retreat path. So if a couple of squads are unloaded across the retreat path for some forces, it has an effect far greater than a couple squads should have. Of course, there are other HRs or understandings one might have to avoid stuff like this.


This is probably the more common and logical reason.

And as others have pointed out, landing in a jungle hex = almost certain defeat of your invasion.

Capturing the ports was the one most important thing to ensure the success of an amphibious operation.

Another very, very important reason for requiring to land in base hexes in the game...many of the Pacific Islands (most in fact) had limited beaches or approaches that would allow for an amphibious assault...and this was usually right into the anchorage. Atolls are surrounded by corals, which makes approach trecherous, while many other islands will present with cliff facings or extremely thick jungle that does not allow for effective amphibious landings.

So as a practical matter, you landed where you could.

Just for an example, go look at a map or satellite photo of Tarawa and you can note the coral reef that surrounds the island chain. Very limited shipping channels or potential landing sites there.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 19
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/28/2010 4:34:01 PM   
dr.hal


Posts: 2092
Joined: 6/3/2006
Status: offline
Folks, as the opponent of the chap who started this tread, I don't agree with the house rule but I do agree that if abused this HR could be "gamey" to say the least (something that is very obvious in other land warfare games). Certainly landings were done in less than ideal places and one certainly didn't have to have piers or other equipments/land features to conduct a landing (witness Guadalcanal, no pier there!). So I don't think it wrong to land in areas other than dots. Think about it, a hex is 40 miles across, and taking into consideration the lack of straight lines on the waterfront, that would translate into about 50+ miles of waterfront property, and it would be rare indeed to find that length of coastline where NO landing could take place (although I'm sure there are a few spots around the globe!). I think the inherit risks of landing over the beach are enough to warrant second thoughts about this tactic (which are pointed out above very vividly). However, one person did point out that a landing of a few squads WOULD cut off retreat, which I do find gamey, thus I would think a rule would be only serious landings on a beach hex should be considered legal, NOT landings of a few troops to cut off retreat, etc. That would expand the options for all players AND allow someone who wants to take risks to "go" for it. And lets face it, NO army can defend a long coastline no matter how big or bad (just ask Rommel, and he knew what he was doing!). Hal

(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 20
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/28/2010 8:44:30 PM   
sprior


Posts: 8190
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Nottingham, UK
Status: offline
I've never played with this HR. Exactly how many non-base, non-dot hexes would anyone want to land in?

_____________________________

"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.



(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 21
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/28/2010 8:51:45 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8623
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

And lets face it, NO army can defend a long coastline no matter how big or bad



That's what navies are for.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to dr.hal)
Post #: 22
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/28/2010 11:34:57 PM   
pws1225

 

Posts: 851
Joined: 8/9/2010
From: Tate's Hell, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: dr.hal

And lets face it, NO army can defend a long coastline no matter how big or bad



That's what navies are for.



Ha! Indeed!

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 23
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/29/2010 5:20:53 AM   
CV2

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 11/4/2010
Status: offline
The house rule is really only because paranoid people from WitP believed because there wasnt a landing report stating what the casualties were on landing at a non-base hex there werent any. Well, there ARE, it just wasnt reported. Frankly dont know if this has been changed in AE or not (the reporting part, not the casualties - I KNOW the casualties happen). If you are looking at a historical game, then non-base landings should certainly be allowed as it was done many many places and in fact the 2 landings for the invasion of Japan were to be on non-base hexes.

(in reply to pws1225)
Post #: 24
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/29/2010 10:00:24 AM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1698
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
Landing at base/dot hex without any preparation points is a disaster, even when there is no defenders. Unit can easily suffer 50 % "casualties" (as disabled squads/guns).

I haven't try it, but shouldn't it be the same with non base/dot hexes?


< Message edited by Puhis -- 11/29/2010 10:15:31 AM >

(in reply to CV2)
Post #: 25
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/29/2010 10:03:00 AM   
CV2

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 11/4/2010
Status: offline
It is the same. It just isnt reported. Try it yourself and see.

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 26
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/29/2010 10:22:47 AM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1698
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
Actually I'd love to see my allied opponents landing at non base hexes. While his disorganised troops would try to to crawl through the jungle, I'd have time to prepare my defence and bring reinforcement...

(in reply to CV2)
Post #: 27
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/29/2010 3:41:57 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9776
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
The HR is to put reign on the clever, clever players that might otherwise land tiny forces in non-base/non-dot hexes to (a) cut off paths of retreat and (b) sever supply lines [erstad pointed (a) out already]. You can do this with just a small force. Whereas, in real life, the local militia, occasional regular army garrison, or the guards assigned to escort the critical supply convoy would be sufficient to handle such an incursion, in the game this isn't modeled well. So we use the HR to prevent wild and wacky situations in which 100 undernourished invaders can interdict a critical supply line for days or weeks.

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 28
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/30/2010 8:28:45 AM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1698
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
I don't see anything wrong with a or b, unless we are talking about small unit fragments. I think it should be OK to use for example battalion size units to block supply lines or retreat paths.

(in reply to Canoerebel)
Post #: 29
RE: A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! - 11/30/2010 10:16:20 AM   
CV2

 

Posts: 168
Joined: 11/4/2010
Status: offline
There are numerous times in the war that small forces were used to do just that. In 1 instance a 4 man team from the SS Barb (sub) landed in Japan and blew up a rail line. Elements of the 51st division on the Bicol Peninsula (SE Luzon) were trapped and surrendered by a small Japanese force landing at night behind them where the peninsula is only 7 miles wide. Several company sized landings were made along the Bataan Peninsula as well (known as the "Battle of the Points"). Fragments of units took vast areas all over the Bismark sea.

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> The War Room >> A Question for all the OLD PROS in the War Room! 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

0.148