Matrix Games Forums

Space Program Manager Launch Contest Announced!Battle Academy 2 is out now on iPad!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
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions

 
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: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 7/11/2012 3:09:58 AM   
treespider


Posts: 9786
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Onime No Kyo


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Onime, as I said, in an ideal world. I certainly have no intention of recoding an already working game to make it more complex. Nor do I have the skills to do so either.

Maybe in a new game that was built strictly with Grognards in mind...but I have a feeling that what we have works quite well for your average player, and they don't want even more complexity.


I agree. And dont get me wrong, I would love to see even more improvement. Heck, if someone were to try and get even halfway, I'm bet Matrix would be more than receptive to the notion and may even come up with something like WPO way back when. But in the present situation, it seems a little too much like whining (I dont mean you, or anyone else here specifically, just the general "mood" of the conversation").

The idea behind my last post was that this thread originally began with the statement that FP is an allied fanboi exploitation of the game engine which makes the game nigh on unplayable for the other side and how the allied fanbois aught to be ashamed of themselves.....or stuff to that effect.....and I would like to return it, if possible, to that topic because so far I have been completely unconvinced by anything posted prior.

Some very good arguments were made to illustrate that it makes the life of the Japanese player more difficult, but that is not tantamount to exploiting anything, much less (what I took to be thinly veiled accusations of) cheating. Frankly, I'd like to hear more about it.



And you Onime would fall into -

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider
In one camp you have -

- "Its a game...the game allows it...so be it....figure out away around it....afterall the game allows other situations that I have to deal with."



Not that there is anything wrong with that...and as such it is a completely valid strategy for the game.

There are some players however who feel that the game as presented is flawed and hence the no refinery supply mods that have been developed.

The recent discussion would bring the "game" more in line with "simulation".





_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Onime No Kyo)
Post #: 91
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 7/11/2012 3:22:30 AM   
Onime No Kyo


Posts: 16628
Joined: 4/28/2004
Status: offline
I dont completely disagree with you on that, TS. But I would qualify that by saying that if you can show me how something makes the game "unfair" I'm more than willing to abide by HRs to prevent the unfairness.

In the present situation, however, I just dont see the crime. Not only is the production of supplies not enough to seriously offset the game balance but it also works both ways, not just at Palembang but various other bases. It seems an inconvenience, nothing more.

I realize that others may feel differently, hence the mods you mention, but I really dont think that blaming the Allied side for this is really called for.



_____________________________

"Mighty is the Thread! Great are its works and insane are its inhabitants!" -Brother Mynok

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 92
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 7/11/2012 4:15:54 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8626
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

Is a good concept, but problematic in that taken the very easy nature of Japanese economics in Stock, having a million HI points is very easily attainable. At least we can mod the supply requirement for repairs, if this was extended to HI for repair - I'd be with you... although supplies are derived from HI plants anyway. Maybe a mixture would work best.



A mixture would work. There are two side-issues I see.

1) Supply has to be moved to the repair. HI teleports. In that way, if refinery-generated supply is gone, you increase Japanese risk and make the supply open to Allied naval attack. Using HI would make things easier for Japan even if HI were more scarce.

2) HI must have POL to generate. Supply can be LIed. By the late game, if HI were used for all industrial repairs, especially strat bombing damage, that would create trade-offs which don't exist now where LI can be sourced once the oil is stopped, captured, or has no tankers to carry it. As you say, it would be helpful if Hi were more moddable.

To me #2 is a more critical variable than #1 across the whole game/war. The focus on FP always falls onto the first three or so months of the game, but strategic repair, especially of aircraft plants in 1944-45, is to me more important. Maybe the refinery supply in the Home Islands is important in the late game?

Palembang doesn't have any LI, so if the refinery stuff is modded away the base falls fast. Unmodded it's 1000+ points, pretty useful to fix 300+ refinery damage. That's a lot of supply to haul from elsewhere.

Soerbaja only has 40 LI, but 170 refinery generated. As the Allies I can do something with 210 to defend. Not much with 40. But I don't have to fix anything either. And in that role time has a significant value to the Japanese. Even more for Palembang. A Japanese player could easily consume two months or more getting enough supply on site to start fixing significant damage.

< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 7/11/2012 4:41:50 AM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to n01487477)
Post #: 93
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 7/11/2012 4:35:10 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8626
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

But that still doesn't prevent the 7000 tons of engineering material that was offloaded three weeks prior from being converted to food overnight because the player decides he no longer wants to improve the facilities at a base but would rather feed and fight.



As a side comment to this, however, I'd ask the Japanese players if they're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater in wanting to dump refineries generating supply. Sure, it helps prevent FP-type situaitons (and as has been pointed out, and not commented upon, possibly because it's uncomfortable for the JFBs, it works in other places as well, such as Soerbaja.) But once you have Palembang and there's no FP situation, you're left with no organic supply to fix those massively damaged POL infrastructures. You must bring it all in from somewhere else where you'd rather leave it.


Only once I've taken a hit at Palembang...the key is patience and don't shock attack.

I've never fully understood how the damage rolls work. And I never see the damge after I'm ejected when I play as the Allies.

quote:


To the comment above about converting cement to bullets, sure, but consider that repairing a damaged refinery isn't a "supply" situation in game terms either, but ought to be an HI point situation. Refineries are all girders and latticework, pipes, concrete berms, pumps. Not food, uniforms, bullets, or avgas. If the game required using up HI bank points to fix damaged industry instead of supply the whole issue would be moot. Or at least mooter.



I was thinking more in terms of concrete, asphalt, asphalt producing plants, crushing plants, compressors, jack hammers, screening plants for gravel, explosives, landing mat, gasoline storage tanks, etc...that are all needed to build up bases...and it cuts both ways...the Japanese need to ship the stuff in to develop their bases...and the Allies need to ship the stuff in to develop their bases...and none of that stuff is food/water/pol/ammo....but it all takes up shipping space and storage space....which HI points do not.


It's a lot cheaper to build ports and air bases than to repair refineries. The Allies never lack for sea lift or supplies or engineers. Time is their main constraint.

As I said in the other post too, the HI/refinery supply issue needs to be considered across the whole war, not only for Palembang or Borneo. HI doesn't need lift, but it does need fuel. That's a lot more critical in the late war when Allied strat bombing is doing 50-80 points of factory damage a couple of times a week.

I know the refinery supply thing is moddable, and people can play either way now. But I wonder if everyone is focusing on 1942 too much and not on late-war balance.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 94
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 7/11/2012 12:05:35 PM   
treespider


Posts: 9786
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

But that still doesn't prevent the 7000 tons of engineering material that was offloaded three weeks prior from being converted to food overnight because the player decides he no longer wants to improve the facilities at a base but would rather feed and fight.



As a side comment to this, however, I'd ask the Japanese players if they're not throwing the baby out with the bathwater in wanting to dump refineries generating supply. Sure, it helps prevent FP-type situaitons (and as has been pointed out, and not commented upon, possibly because it's uncomfortable for the JFBs, it works in other places as well, such as Soerbaja.) But once you have Palembang and there's no FP situation, you're left with no organic supply to fix those massively damaged POL infrastructures. You must bring it all in from somewhere else where you'd rather leave it.


Only once I've taken a hit at Palembang...the key is patience and don't shock attack.

I've never fully understood how the damage rolls work. And I never see the damge after I'm ejected when I play as the Allies.

quote:


To the comment above about converting cement to bullets, sure, but consider that repairing a damaged refinery isn't a "supply" situation in game terms either, but ought to be an HI point situation. Refineries are all girders and latticework, pipes, concrete berms, pumps. Not food, uniforms, bullets, or avgas. If the game required using up HI bank points to fix damaged industry instead of supply the whole issue would be moot. Or at least mooter.



I was thinking more in terms of concrete, asphalt, asphalt producing plants, crushing plants, compressors, jack hammers, screening plants for gravel, explosives, landing mat, gasoline storage tanks, etc...that are all needed to build up bases...and it cuts both ways...the Japanese need to ship the stuff in to develop their bases...and the Allies need to ship the stuff in to develop their bases...and none of that stuff is food/water/pol/ammo....but it all takes up shipping space and storage space....which HI points do not.


It's a lot cheaper to build ports and air bases than to repair refineries. The Allies never lack for sea lift or supplies or engineers. Time is their main constraint.

As I said in the other post too, the HI/refinery supply issue needs to be considered across the whole war, not only for Palembang or Borneo. HI doesn't need lift, but it does need fuel. That's a lot more critical in the late war when Allied strat bombing is doing 50-80 points of factory damage a couple of times a week.

I know the refinery supply thing is moddable, and people can play either way now. But I wonder if everyone is focusing on 1942 too much and not on late-war balance.


I think we are talking past each other...and I think there is a misconception - in stock if the refineries at Palembang are destroyed they do not produce supply, so they are not producing supply to repair themselves and it still needs to be brought in until a fair amount of the refinery is repaired.

I am apparently missing your point about late war balance, in that somehow the balance will be altered if refineries no longer produce supply. Yes the balance will be altered because a Palembang producing 600-1000 points of supply per day in 1944 is much different than a Palembang producing 0 in 1944. The Japanese will have a large supply source 100 hexes closer to the front that will not require as much shipping to move. As a Japanese player I would rather ship supplies 10 hexes from Palembang rather than 100 hexes from Osaka.

I see your point about Refinery repair utilizing HI points, but you're not going to cripple the Japanese economy by making them utilize HI points to repair the industry, and it has no relation to what I was trying to stress about the different kinds of supply that are represented by the "Generic Supply Point". This game is all about merchant ships, their capacity and the supply they carry.

In the case of FP - one point as an example but not all points associated with the situation is that bases for the most part can only hold a certain amount of supply. If a large percentage of that supply capacity were occupied by supplies needed to improve a base's fortifications or size to increase storage capacity, then there would be less supplies available for fighting or surviving a siege. The player would be forced into making a decision about what to send to the base. Another point would be that if the refinery did produce supply it would only be the kind of supply needed for moving or building and would not be the kind needed for fighting or feeding.

As it applies to the rest of the game - if shipping capacity were sucked up moving around all of those items that are not directly involved in fighting or surviving the pace of operations would certainly slow down. You might see situations such as Noumea where there were bottlenecks for shipping. Ships were stuck in harbor as floating warehouses because the items on those ships were not immediately needed by the troops on the ground. Or alternatively when one side lands at a base how much supply is brought along to support fighting and surviving and how much is brought along to lay new tarmacs and improve the wharves after seizing the base. A player might screw up and not bring enough supplies to support fighting if they expected light opposition...or they might not have enough shipping to immediately bring in the supplies needed to start improving the base.



< Message edited by treespider -- 7/11/2012 12:06:39 PM >


_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 95
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 7/11/2012 5:30:17 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7165
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: n01487477

Is a good concept, but problematic in that taken the very easy nature of Japanese economics in Stock, having a million HI points is very easily attainable. At least we can mod the supply requirement for repairs, if this was extended to HI for repair - I'd be with you... although supplies are derived from HI plants anyway. Maybe a mixture would work best.



A mixture would work. There are two side-issues I see.

1) Supply has to be moved to the repair. HI teleports. In that way, if refinery-generated supply is gone, you increase Japanese risk and make the supply open to Allied naval attack. Using HI would make things easier for Japan even if HI were more scarce.

2) HI must have POL to generate. Supply can be LIed. By the late game, if HI were used for all industrial repairs, especially strat bombing damage, that would create trade-offs which don't exist now where LI can be sourced once the oil is stopped, captured, or has no tankers to carry it. As you say, it would be helpful if Hi were more moddable.

To me #2 is a more critical variable than #1 across the whole game/war. The focus on FP always falls onto the first three or so months of the game, but strategic repair, especially of aircraft plants in 1944-45, is to me more important. Maybe the refinery supply in the Home Islands is important in the late game?

Palembang doesn't have any LI, so if the refinery stuff is modded away the base falls fast. Unmodded it's 1000+ points, pretty useful to fix 300+ refinery damage. That's a lot of supply to haul from elsewhere.

Soerbaja only has 40 LI, but 170 refinery generated. As the Allies I can do something with 210 to defend. Not much with 40. But I don't have to fix anything either. And in that role time has a significant value to the Japanese. Even more for Palembang. A Japanese player could easily consume two months or more getting enough supply on site to start fixing significant damage.


Which is why I would like to see a system that takes the HI, LI and Supply and turns it into something more tangible. HI would still be used to power the current industries, but it could also be converted into 'Construction Materials' that then have to be transported to the build site. Supply is the same. You could even produce LI points that turn into something else.

I'm seeing an even more refined system (or more complex) system where you first get your LI and HI, then have to convert them to the various things you need. But I'm getting ahead of myself here.

As far as the current topic goes, my fix was to increase Supply produced by light industry and remove the supply from refineries. Overall, it doesn't hurt the whole supply situation, but prevents Palembang, etc from being self sustaining when in real life it shouldn't be.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 96
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 7/11/2012 6:48:53 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 8626
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


I think we are talking past each other...and I think there is a misconception - in stock if the refineries at Palembang are destroyed they do not produce supply, so they are not producing supply to repair themselves and it still needs to be brought in until a fair amount of the refinery is repaired.

They don't produce supply to the extent they're damaged, but they produce supply in the undamaged portion. If there is 30% refinery damage the 700ish supply production is gold for effecting repairs on the 30%. I don't play the Japanese, so I don't know the destruction range, but I've never heard anyone here claiming they got 100% destruction even on a shock roll.

I am apparently missing your point about late war balance, in that somehow the balance will be altered if refineries no longer produce supply. Yes the balance will be altered because a Palembang producing 600-1000 points of supply per day in 1944 is much different than a Palembang producing 0 in 1944. The Japanese will have a large supply source 100 hexes closer to the front that will not require as much shipping to move. As a Japanese player I would rather ship supplies 10 hexes from Palembang rather than 100 hexes from Osaka.

That's true, but it wasn't my point. I wasn't discussing Palembang per se. In the late war it's probably in Allied hands, and they of course don't need the help. I was more talking about 1) the macro balance from day 1 of taking away total system supply if all refineries are modded and there is no corresponding bump up in LI or HI sourced supply (and refinery-produced supply is non-trivial IMO), and 2) that in the late-war the Home Island refineries are a considerable source of local supply to be used to repair strat bombing damage in the HI. IOW, castrating refinery supply in order to prevent a FP in the first weeks will affect the Japanese player a lot in 1945. Maybe more than some players who have never gotten that far realize.

I see your point about Refinery repair utilizing HI points, but you're not going to cripple the Japanese economy by making them utilize HI points to repair the industry, and it has no relation to what I was trying to stress about the different kinds of supply that are represented by the "Generic Supply Point". This game is all about merchant ships, their capacity and the supply they carry.

I agree that the orginal devs made supply be what it is because it can't teleport. Without that about half of the Allied war goes away; anti-economic warfare was the key aim of the Allies. And I also ack that the game has only seven, huge, crudely defined "buckets" in the model--HI, LI, Oil, Fuel, Supply, Armaments, Vehicles. (Yards are secondary.) Because of this there are oddities in terms of definitions. Why, for example, does production of two wings and a fuselage, a minor consumption of metal, energy, and labor, consume HI, while repairing a multi-square-mile refinery complex which consumes millions of tons of steel and uses massive castings, eats only "supply." Another example: a Quonset hut "kit" uses rolled steel, girders, portland cement plus manufactured items like doors and windows, but doen't use up HI either. In fact the model almost ignores Allied HI in toto. In Februray 1942 I have 563,000 HI points in the bank, am making 8300 per day, and have no use for them.

Overall, my main objection to the economic model vis a vis history is that oil is not as critical to the Japanese effort as it should be. It's too easy to produce, too easy to move (magically in Asia), and too easy to convert into forms which can't be attacked. The whole of the Japanese expansion effort was aimed at securing petroleum. Lack of it was the single biggest factor in their mid- and late-war naval ops, aircraft usage, pilot training, and weapon mix decisions. Smart human players over the years have learned how to make it essentially a non-factor as they build massive air armies to use in 1945. In hindsight I think this is the single biggest economic boo-boo in the design. In contrast refinery-produced supply is a blip. My aim in suggesting HI could be used for all industrial repairs wasn't to illustrate that the buckets are crude--they are even as they're the best of any wargame I know--but that the model as a whole underplays the role of oil and makes the late-war a Frankenstein version of history.


As it applies to the rest of the game - if shipping capacity were sucked up moving around all of those items that are not directly involved in fighting or surviving the pace of operations would certainly slow down. You might see situations such as Noumea where there were bottlenecks for shipping. Ships were stuck in harbor as floating warehouses because the items on those ships were not immediately needed by the troops on the ground. Or alternatively when one side lands at a base how much supply is brought along to support fighting and surviving and how much is brought along to lay new tarmacs and improve the wharves after seizing the base. A player might screw up and not bring enough supplies to support fighting if they expected light opposition...or they might not have enough shipping to immediately bring in the supplies needed to start improving the base.

I personally, as an ex-supply officer, would like there to be more logistic complexity, but I know I'm in the minority. I would be fine with calling "supply" only food, clothes, ammo, and avgas and make HI stand-in for everything else and require it be transported. I think that would make playing the Allies a lot more fun, as well as soak up a lot of Japanese sealift currently used for forays into Oz and India. I'd also like to recognize the real world need to use up "something", either supply or HI, to repair damage to airfields and ports. Having it be free makes sieges both harder and easier, and goes against common sense.

But knowing any change to the model is not going to happen (and also knowing that my suggesitons aren't going to happen either) I'd settle for forcing more HI to be eaten up doing things which take up heavy industry's output. Repairing refineries and engine plants fit the bill to me. And I would do this mostly to force oil to be used in larger amounts to run the war, and to make securing and transporting that oil a central concern of the Japanese player, instead of the sideline it is now in the face of Indian invasions and considerations of Pearl Harbor landings.




< Message edited by Bullwinkle58 -- 7/11/2012 6:54:43 PM >


_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 97
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 7/13/2012 5:20:16 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3427
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Hopefully, while the JFB is charging down to Palembang, the AFB is using this time to create other roadblocks to be stumbled upon.

I think a lot of effort is going into countering a gambit which really only is of value against a JFB who isnt well organised or against the AI.



Not necesarily true. I had never seen it, or heard of a Palembang gambit before my game with Canoerebel. By the time I recognized it for what it was, it was too late. Canoerebel's early defensive strategy was excellent and I give him kudos for it. But I believe the Palembang gambit takes advantage of the game system.

I just do not believe it could have ever been possible in real life. As such, it does not fit the style of game I like to play and I did not prepare for it. Knowing what it does now means I will be vigilant against it in future games. Live and learn... and play.

Chez



_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 98
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 7/13/2012 8:16:48 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5197
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Hopefully, while the JFB is charging down to Palembang, the AFB is using this time to create other roadblocks to be stumbled upon.

I think a lot of effort is going into countering a gambit which really only is of value against a JFB who isnt well organised or against the AI.



Not necesarily true. I had never seen it, or heard of a Palembang gambit before my game with Canoerebel. By the time I recognized it for what it was, it was too late. Canoerebel's early defensive strategy was excellent and I give him kudos for it. But I believe the Palembang gambit takes advantage of the game system.

I just do not believe it could have ever been possible in real life. As such, it does not fit the style of game I like to play and I did not prepare for it. Knowing what it does now means I will be vigilant against it in future games. Live and learn... and play.

Chez



In your game aganst CR you were not well organised to take what is probably the most important point on the map, either on the run as suggested by the OP or later when if you had recognized the threat and CR was still vulnerable. If you read CR's AAR you will see the gap between his decision to hold Palembang and the point where he felt it secure.

Playing a historical game only works against the AI or with another player who will only play down historical lines. CR has always shown his ointerest in doing something a bit different, picket ships, invading the Kuriles or Iwo Jima etc.



_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 99
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 7/14/2012 7:06:10 AM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3427
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

Playing a historical game only works against the AI or with another player who will only play down historical lines. CR has always shown his ointerest in doing something a bit different, picket ships, invading the Kuriles or Iwo Jima etc.


I am a historical player, what can I say? I wasn't anticipating a fantasy game.

To be fair, I should have investigated his style of play before committing to the game. I didn't and I learned from it. I did enjoy the game right until the last turn however it is not a style I will attempt again. It just isn't me.

That's why I am thoroughly enjoying my game with Bradfordkay. We are in Nov 43. Both he and I look at the game and apply real world historical logic to it and we limit ourselves to what not only what was historically possible tactically but we also apply a human factor to the game. That is to say, we play as though those 1's and 0's actually represent flesh and blood. In a nutshell, that means no actions that would have been political suicide or unpalatable. So no bloody merchant ships sitting off enemy shores as pickets.

Chez



_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 100
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 7/14/2012 11:20:49 PM   
Titanwarrior89


Posts: 3086
Joined: 8/28/2003
From: arkansas
Status: offline
Why do that -it still seems their padding the japanese side...if your going to do that then you might as well decrease the US sub dud rate.....if your going to do something ahistorical with a site. This game could very well end up being totally ahistorical. You should be given at least the historical assets....no matter who it effects. The campaign game last too long in real time to do otherwise.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

One solution is to play a DaBigBabes game, as BigBabes disabled supply generation by refineries.



< Message edited by Titanwarrior89 -- 7/15/2012 12:54:28 AM >


_____________________________

"Before Guadalcanal the enemy advanced at his pleasure. After Guadalcanal, he retreated at ours".

"Mama, There's Rabbits in the Garden"

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 101
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 7/15/2012 12:05:30 AM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 18244
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: Twin Cities, MN
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

Playing a historical game only works against the AI or with another player who will only play down historical lines. CR has always shown his ointerest in doing something a bit different, picket ships, invading the Kuriles or Iwo Jima etc.


I am a historical player, what can I say? I wasn't anticipating a fantasy game.

To be fair, I should have investigated his style of play before committing to the game. I didn't and I learned from it. I did enjoy the game right until the last turn however it is not a style I will attempt again. It just isn't me.

That's why I am thoroughly enjoying my game with Bradfordkay. We are in Nov 43. Both he and I look at the game and apply real world historical logic to it and we limit ourselves to what not only what was historically possible tactically but we also apply a human factor to the game. That is to say, we play as though those 1's and 0's actually represent flesh and blood. In a nutshell, that means no actions that would have been political suicide or unpalatable. So no bloody merchant ships sitting off enemy shores as pickets.

Chez




Chez,

That's the only way to play, IMO. Good on you for keeping true to yourself.

_____________________________


(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 102
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 7/15/2012 4:13:21 AM   
denisonh


Posts: 2186
Joined: 12/21/2001
From: Northern Virginia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

Playing a historical game only works against the AI or with another player who will only play down historical lines. CR has always shown his ointerest in doing something a bit different, picket ships, invading the Kuriles or Iwo Jima etc.

I am a historical player, what can I say? I wasn't anticipating a fantasy game.

To be fair, I should have investigated his style of play before committing to the game. I didn't and I learned from it. I did enjoy the game right until the last turn however it is not a style I will attempt again. It just isn't me.

That's why I am thoroughly enjoying my game with Bradfordkay. We are in Nov 43. Both he and I look at the game and apply real world historical logic to it and we limit ourselves to what not only what was historically possible tactically but we also apply a human factor to the game. That is to say, we play as though those 1's and 0's actually represent flesh and blood. In a nutshell, that means no actions that would have been political suicide or unpalatable. So no bloody merchant ships sitting off enemy shores as pickets.

Chez




Chez,

That's the only way to play, IMO. Good on you for keeping true to yourself.

+1

< Message edited by denisonh -- 7/15/2012 4:14:09 AM >


_____________________________


"Life is tough, it's even tougher when you're stupid" -SGT John M. Stryker, USMC

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 103
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 7/15/2012 9:54:26 AM   
mike scholl 1

 

Posts: 1265
Joined: 2/17/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

Playing a historical game only works against the AI or with another player who will only play down historical lines. CR has always shown his ointerest in doing something a bit different, picket ships, invading the Kuriles or Iwo Jima etc.

I am a historical player, what can I say? I wasn't anticipating a fantasy game.

To be fair, I should have investigated his style of play before committing to the game. I didn't and I learned from it. I did enjoy the game right until the last turn however it is not a style I will attempt again. It just isn't me.

That's why I am thoroughly enjoying my game with Bradfordkay. We are in Nov 43. Both he and I look at the game and apply real world historical logic to it and we limit ourselves to what not only what was historically possible tactically but we also apply a human factor to the game. That is to say, we play as though those 1's and 0's actually represent flesh and blood. In a nutshell, that means no actions that would have been political suicide or unpalatable. So no bloody merchant ships sitting off enemy shores as pickets.

Chez




Chez,

That's the only way to play, IMO. Good on you for keeping true to yourself.

+1


+1 More. "Gamers" (those folks who say "If the rules don't say I can't") should really make themselves plain up front..., so "Historians" (those folks who say "But that's impossible/rediculous in real life.") can avoid them.

(in reply to denisonh)
Post #: 104
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 7/15/2012 8:19:27 PM   
jetjockey


Posts: 248
Joined: 11/23/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

Playing a historical game only works against the AI or with another player who will only play down historical lines. CR has always shown his ointerest in doing something a bit different, picket ships, invading the Kuriles or Iwo Jima etc.

I am a historical player, what can I say? I wasn't anticipating a fantasy game.

To be fair, I should have investigated his style of play before committing to the game. I didn't and I learned from it. I did enjoy the game right until the last turn however it is not a style I will attempt again. It just isn't me.

That's why I am thoroughly enjoying my game with Bradfordkay. We are in Nov 43. Both he and I look at the game and apply real world historical logic to it and we limit ourselves to what not only what was historically possible tactically but we also apply a human factor to the game. That is to say, we play as though those 1's and 0's actually represent flesh and blood. In a nutshell, that means no actions that would have been political suicide or unpalatable. So no bloody merchant ships sitting off enemy shores as pickets.

Chez




Chez,

That's the only way to play, IMO. Good on you for keeping true to yourself.

+1


+1 More. "Gamers" (those folks who say "If the rules don't say I can't") should really make themselves plain up front..., so "Historians" (those folks who say "But that's impossible/rediculous in real life.") can avoid them.



+1

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 105
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 7/15/2012 10:19:49 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 6023
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Why do that -it still seems their padding the japanese side...if your going to do that then you might as well decrease the US sub dud rate.....if your going to do something ahistorical with a site. This game could very well end up being totally ahistorical. You should be given at least the historical assets....no matter who it effects. The campaign game last too long in real time to do otherwise.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

One solution is to play a DaBigBabes game, as BigBabes disabled supply generation by refineries.




Because you cannot eat oil or shoot oil from rifles. That's why...refineries should not create supply, that is for HI/LI.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to Titanwarrior89)
Post #: 106
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 7/15/2012 11:24:04 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7165
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar


quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Why do that -it still seems their padding the japanese side...if your going to do that then you might as well decrease the US sub dud rate.....if your going to do something ahistorical with a site. This game could very well end up being totally ahistorical. You should be given at least the historical assets....no matter who it effects. The campaign game last too long in real time to do otherwise.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

One solution is to play a DaBigBabes game, as BigBabes disabled supply generation by refineries.




Because you cannot eat oil or shoot oil from rifles. That's why...refineries should not create supply, that is for HI/LI.


Well you CAN eat oil...once. It won't sustain an army though.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 107
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 7/16/2012 2:55:16 AM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 3741
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar


quote:

ORIGINAL: Titanwarrior89

Why do that -it still seems their padding the japanese side...if your going to do that then you might as well decrease the US sub dud rate.....if your going to do something ahistorical with a site. This game could very well end up being totally ahistorical. You should be given at least the historical assets....no matter who it effects. The campaign game last too long in real time to do otherwise.
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yaab

One solution is to play a DaBigBabes game, as BigBabes disabled supply generation by refineries.




Because you cannot eat oil or shoot oil from rifles. That's why...refineries should not create supply, that is for HI/LI.


Would be correct except for fact that devs made the abstraction that aircraft consume only "supplies" not "avgas" when flying. In game the only place which produces "avgas" is a refinery hence why logically, to be consistent with this abstraction, refineries produce some "supplies".

Consistent with this abstraction is the situation that the Japanese Home Islands have a huge surfeit of excess refineries, compared to local sources of oil feedstock, whose "supply" generation represents "avgas". Given the game design, it really is stretching the idea that all those Japanese planes flying could be supported with no "avgas"; that all those refineries did not need any oil to be imported in order to be converted into "avgas".

Once one starts fiddling with any particular subset of the game design, there are always unintended consequences elsewhere and logical inconsistencies are brought out. Whenever one engages in abstractions, one is caught in subjective decision making.

Alfred

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 108
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 7/16/2012 4:49:00 AM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5913
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
Would be correct except for fact that devs made the abstraction that aircraft consume only "supplies" not "avgas" when flying. In game the only place which produces "avgas" is a refinery hence why logically, to be consistent with this abstraction, refineries produce some "supplies".

Consistent with this abstraction is the situation that the Japanese Home Islands have a huge surfeit of excess refineries, compared to local sources of oil feedstock, whose "supply" generation represents "avgas". Given the game design, it really is stretching the idea that all those Japanese planes flying could be supported with no "avgas"; that all those refineries did not need any oil to be imported in order to be converted into "avgas".

Once one starts fiddling with any particular subset of the game design, there are always unintended consequences elsewhere and logical inconsistencies are brought out. Whenever one engages in abstractions, one is caught in subjective decision making.

Alfred

+1



< Message edited by PaxMondo -- 7/16/2012 4:50:11 AM >


_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 109
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 7/16/2012 2:57:58 PM   
Canoerebel


Posts: 9776
Joined: 12/14/2002
From: Northwestern Georgia, USA
Status: offline
I don't recall things starting out that way in the game between Chez and I.

First, I made it clear in the Opponent's Wanted advertisement that I was looking for an experienced IJ player who was capable of pursuing auto victory (though I wasn't asking that he actually do so). Second, it was a Scenario Two with all its goodies. Third, we would be following the game in which I had just been pushed to the brink of defeat by Q-Ball. So, I knew that Chez would have access to the collective wisdom of the Forums and assumed that some pretty smart folks might be helping him take the game one step further. I was very, very concerned that I might be on the losing end of an auto victory.

Chez started out with grand ideas of invading Oz, something which wasn't possible on a large scale in WWII. Had things not gone sour, we'd have been fighting a non-historic war in favor of Japan in the middle of Australia. Instead, we ended up fighting a very strange war in Sumatra. Both sides had it within their power to address that situation and win the campaign, so it wasn't some kind of unfair play on the part of the Allies.

< Message edited by Canoerebel -- 7/16/2012 2:59:50 PM >

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 110
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 10/11/2012 5:49:35 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 867
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poznan, Poland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

Yes the balance will be altered because a Palembang producing 600-1000 points of supply per day in 1944 is much different than a Palembang producing 0 in 1944. The Japanese will have a large supply source 100 hexes closer to the front that will not require as much shipping to move. As a Japanese player I would rather ship supplies 10 hexes from Palembang rather than 100 hexes from Osaka.



So, is the Fortress Palembang in reverse a viable Japanese tactic in the late war? Do you bypass it as Allies, take it or maybe level it with heavy bombers?

(in reply to treespider)
Post #: 111
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 10/11/2012 6:27:23 AM   
CyrusSpitama


Posts: 190
Joined: 2/21/2011
From: Naw'lins, Luzianna
Status: offline
With the Allies, I think the issue is more that they don't NEED Palembang for anything others than VPs. Japan NEEDS this location to maintain the engine of their empire. If Japan did this tactic, I would think the Allies would just hold water borne parades in the area nearby and just bypass it.

_____________________________

"I'm sure the universe is full of intelligent life. It's just been too intelligent to come here." - Arthur C. Clarke

(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 112
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 10/11/2012 6:49:41 AM   
LoBaron


Posts: 4592
Joined: 1/26/2003
From: Vienna, Austria
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jetjockey


quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: denisonh

quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

Playing a historical game only works against the AI or with another player who will only play down historical lines. CR has always shown his ointerest in doing something a bit different, picket ships, invading the Kuriles or Iwo Jima etc.

I am a historical player, what can I say? I wasn't anticipating a fantasy game.

To be fair, I should have investigated his style of play before committing to the game. I didn't and I learned from it. I did enjoy the game right until the last turn however it is not a style I will attempt again. It just isn't me.

That's why I am thoroughly enjoying my game with Bradfordkay. We are in Nov 43. Both he and I look at the game and apply real world historical logic to it and we limit ourselves to what not only what was historically possible tactically but we also apply a human factor to the game. That is to say, we play as though those 1's and 0's actually represent flesh and blood. In a nutshell, that means no actions that would have been political suicide or unpalatable. So no bloody merchant ships sitting off enemy shores as pickets.

Chez




Chez,

That's the only way to play, IMO. Good on you for keeping true to yourself.

+1


+1 More. "Gamers" (those folks who say "If the rules don't say I can't") should really make themselves plain up front..., so "Historians" (those folks who say "But that's impossible/rediculous in real life.") can avoid them.



+1



Don´t get me wrong, I am a historical wargamer as well, and in general I refrain from undertakings that can be considered excessively ahistorical or unrealistic.

But I really feel the need to jump in for Canoerebel here. He is a very experienced player with many games udner his belt. He has a talent to identify certain key
aspects in his campaigning and works towards them, and he faught the cream of players doing the same. Hell, as he said, he was pushed back far into India
in the same scenario (under a different patch admittedly).

That Canoe is using tactics and strategies he knows from his past experience, also taking into account that he never seemed overly interested to replay WWII 1:1, makes
it obvious what style he would pursue as an opponent. As he stated himself, he wanted an opponent to pull every trick to achieve auto victory. What this implies
is pretty obvious and does not require ANY further hint that he was never planning to play a historical campaign.

So, anybody who thinks that "Gamers" should advertize their intentions upfront is surely not talking about Canoerebel. He did exactly that. Advertizing his playing style upfront.

That I, as a historical player, should attempt to clearify my playing style with my opponent to avoid compatibility issues is one of the basic agreements
required for a successful PBEM. Blaming someone else that your expectation did not match the reality because you did not ask is something I refuse to understand.

_____________________________

S**t happens in war.

All hail the superior ones!

(in reply to jetjockey)
Post #: 113
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 10/13/2012 6:44:44 AM   
jrcar

 

Posts: 3612
Joined: 4/19/2002
From: Seymour, Australia
Status: offline
Palembang is more than "just" an oil refinery and a swamp.

It was once the capital of an ancient civilisation and as a city has been in existance since the mid 6th centuary AD. The centre of an empire that was made rich on trade well before Singapore. Today it is still the second largest city in Sumatra one of the largest cities in Indonesia.

So IMHO it should be a source of supply (food etc) and had a small manufacturing base so may have been capable of small arms ammunition manufacture and repair... if the conditions were right.

I won't get into the whole debate about supply from refineries, I think aircraft fuel is a critical item that shoud be tracked... however quickly it becomes a logistics simulation that many would not find interesting...

Palembang was used as a Brit airfield and it was a military option to defend.

I am in the "all bets are off camp" post first strike 7 Dec, I'm interested in exploring options that weren't "historic" (want history, read a book), however I am also interested in trying to put most of the constraints in place that the real commanders had, except the political ones. That then gives you an insight into how much the society and politics of the day altered potentially optimum military options... A good lesson for military strategists of today to remember as it is the society and political situation that significantly shapes military action.

Cheers

Rob

_____________________________

AE BETA Breaker

(in reply to LoBaron)
Post #: 114
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 10/13/2012 12:39:23 PM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 6023
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/now in Israel
Status: offline
One thing is also that Japanese player needs to recognize critical places he has to get and prevent Allies to concentrate defensive power to key points.

Even historically, if Allies had been bit better prepared and co-ordinated, Malaya, Suva and Sumatra might have proved tough nut to crack.

Basically, Japanese player needs to crush those places quickly. If it takes more forces than historically, so be it, since both have historical hindsight. If it takes to bring KB to play, so be it. If it's worth attacking with division, it is worth attacking with 2-3 divisions. Militarily, massed superior capability usually gives least own casualties and maximizes enemy casualties.

Like Shattered Swords well says about Operation MO (against Port Moresby), IJN should have realized that either location is worth attacking with full Kido Butai or none at all. Penny packets just give then weaker opponent chance to deal nasty surprises by achieving local parity or even superiority.

This is good advice to IJ player, I think.

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to jrcar)
Post #: 115
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 10/13/2012 3:10:45 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 2947
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
One solution was to have 2 supplies: "supply" and "military supply" or maybe better lets call the later "tech supply". The first came from all small industries and includes food, water maybe a little of military etc the other is from aircraft, weapons, afv, and big factories. Doesn't make sense that Palembang and Balikpapan can supply big list of stuff that could only be made in Japan.
That means also that an unit should consume supply, tech supply and also fuel(more vehicles/travel more fuel)
Of course there would be the need to transport both supplies so it was an added complexity but i think it is not too much compared to benefits.
Simplifying the pilot management and making ships dock automatically and fully automatic convoys defined by user could compensate for it.


(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 116
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 10/14/2012 12:45:03 AM   
Sredni

 

Posts: 700
Joined: 9/30/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline
I've seen this mentioned as a counter to fortress palembang in other discussions but didn't see it in the OP or in the thread proper:

LRCAP palembang to prevent the allies from flying in squads using all the dutch flying boats and transports.

(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 117
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 10/14/2012 1:49:06 AM   
Dan Nichols


Posts: 863
Joined: 8/30/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sredni

I've seen this mentioned as a counter to fortress palembang in other discussions but didn't see it in the OP or in the thread proper:

LRCAP palembang to prevent the allies from flying in squads using all the dutch flying boats and transports.


To be honest, the Dutch forces that can be gathered in that manner are not decisive. You can not move any of their heavy equipment without changing their HQ and using ships. The largest forces are the Burma Brigades that start the game loaded on transports and the British 18th Division that is also loaded at scenario start. If the Allied player really wants to make a large FP, then one or both of the Indian Divisions starting in Malaysia can be moved with no PP cost.

(in reply to Sredni)
Post #: 118
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 10/14/2012 5:28:21 AM   
Sredni

 

Posts: 700
Joined: 9/30/2004
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dan Nichols


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sredni

I've seen this mentioned as a counter to fortress palembang in other discussions but didn't see it in the OP or in the thread proper:

LRCAP palembang to prevent the allies from flying in squads using all the dutch flying boats and transports.


To be honest, the Dutch forces that can be gathered in that manner are not decisive. You can not move any of their heavy equipment without changing their HQ and using ships. The largest forces are the Burma Brigades that start the game loaded on transports and the British 18th Division that is also loaded at scenario start. If the Allied player really wants to make a large FP, then one or both of the Indian Divisions starting in Malaysia can be moved with no PP cost.


Every little bit helps (hurts), and with proper netty coverage shipping troops to fortress palembang is a no go (torpedoing every ship that gets close to sumatra seems like a perfect solution to F.P. to me), leaving air transport. LRCAP of palembang is the proper counter to this tactic from what I understand.

*shrug* Just tossing it out for consideration.

(in reply to Dan Nichols)
Post #: 119
RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions - 10/14/2012 9:43:39 AM   
Liebestod

 

Posts: 42
Joined: 8/27/2012
Status: offline
is it not possible to land at Palembang on turn 1?

(in reply to Sredni)
Post #: 120
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Fortress Palembang: Problems and Solutions Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   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

0.133