Mavis L

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

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

rroberson
Posts: 2057
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:53 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

Mavis L

Post by rroberson »

Okay...need a little direction here....

my opponent has just kicked my ass across the map. So I admit I'm more then frustrated with the game anyway. Im use to that...it's not like I ever win much at the game I think I have lost every game I have played for 10 years.

But the thing is, he is using Mavis L seaplanes to deploy paratroopers. Dropping them deep deep behind lines and pinning troops (in Australia) so they have no path of retreat. Which allows him to go for kill shots. With regular transports I have accepted that it is a valid tactic. Didn't much enjoy it, but it was a lesson learned. With seaplanes, that's pushing the limits of credibility with the game. It seems like a very gamey tactic and certainly something I would have never "thought" to do in my many outtings as the japanese player.

Now to me that's pushing reality a bit too much. It's not their intended use by the game designers...nor the japanese.

he says it's a valid tactic.

is it? And please tell me if it is. I will go back to my game with my tail tucked firmly between my legs and continue to watch the beating I'm taking.
Image
User avatar
Quixote
Posts: 774
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Maryland

RE: Mavis L

Post by Quixote »

Is he dropping entire units, or just fragments to trap you? (And do you have any house rules about this? I've been following your AAR, but I don't remember.)
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Mavis L

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

I wikied the Mavis L and all I can tell is a certain number of the produciton build run was for "transport." I don't know if they have wheels, but a paratrooper can jump out of anything with a big enough side or rear door. Any sort of CAP ought to chew them up in a hurry, but I don't see any reason that jumps out to say they couldn't work for paratroopers.
The Moose
rroberson
Posts: 2057
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:53 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

RE: Mavis L

Post by rroberson »

ORIGINAL: Quixote

Is he dropping entire units, or just fragments to trap you? (And do you have any house rules about this? I've been following your AAR, but I don't remember.)


nah no house rules...I really don't like too many of them because I believe if Im doing something that annoys my opponent..then I stop. Sort of build the rules of the game as you go.
Image
rroberson
Posts: 2057
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:53 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

RE: Mavis L

Post by rroberson »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I wikied the Mavis L and all I can tell is a certain number of the produciton build run was for "transport." I don't know if they have wheels, but a paratrooper can jump out of anything with a big enough side or rear door. Any sort of CAP ought to chew them up in a hurry, but I don't see any reason that jumps out to say they couldn't work for paratroopers.


So I need to quite my whining and take my beating [:'(]
Image
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Mavis L

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: rroberson

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

I wikied the Mavis L and all I can tell is a certain number of the produciton build run was for "transport." I don't know if they have wheels, but a paratrooper can jump out of anything with a big enough side or rear door. Any sort of CAP ought to chew them up in a hurry, but I don't see any reason that jumps out to say they couldn't work for paratroopers.


So I need to quite my whining and take my beating [:'(]

I can't really comment since I'm reading both sides today and his AAR is ahead of yours. But a page or so back in the AAR we talked a little about Oz. Take another look.

The Moose
rroberson
Posts: 2057
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:53 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

RE: Mavis L

Post by rroberson »

no i remember the conversation. There was just no way in the world I thought he could reach kalgooie with paratroopers. (though I think he moved an armored unit down to it). As far as defending perth...honestly I just don't have enough troops on the board to defend everything. To me if he took western australia then he took it...not like he would stay (much like his move in alaska) so it was a lower priority. Now eastern australia...very different story.
Image
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Mavis L

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

There's still more on that page we talked about. You didn't mention it here.
The Moose
rroberson
Posts: 2057
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:53 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

RE: Mavis L

Post by rroberson »

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

There's still more on that page we talked about. You didn't mention it here.
There's still more on that page we talked about. You didn't mention it here.

no I didn't

[8D]
Image
User avatar
Bullwinkle58
Posts: 11297
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2009 12:47 pm

RE: Mavis L

Post by Bullwinkle58 »

ORIGINAL: rroberson

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

There's still more on that page we talked about. You didn't mention it here.
There's still more on that page we talked about. You didn't mention it here.

no I didn't

[8D]

There ya go! [:'(]

Hey, it's only September 1942.
The Moose
rroberson
Posts: 2057
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:53 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

RE: Mavis L

Post by rroberson »

It's october. [:D]

I have no intention of surrendering...I intend to see this one through. I am pretty frustrated though admittedly. I'm sure in the light of day tomorrow his use of paratroopers will be a smaller deal to me. Just hella frustrating because I sat back and studied Australia and said...no way he can make a drop here. The only thing I was worried about was armor (which he tried) and I spotted them.

winds of war and all that.
Image
User avatar
PaxMondo
Posts: 9796
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 3:23 pm

RE: Mavis L

Post by PaxMondo »

I won't comment here (as I am reading the other side as well) other than to say I had to ask how he did it as well.  Impressive.  I would have fallen for it as well, if that makes you feel any better.
Pax
rroberson
Posts: 2057
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:53 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

RE: Mavis L

Post by rroberson »

ORIGINAL: PaxMondo

I won't comment here (as I am reading the other side as well) other than to say I had to ask how he did it as well.  Impressive.  I would have fallen for it as well, if that makes you feel any better.


That and some beer might.

[8D]
Image
User avatar
ny59giants
Posts: 9881
Joined: Mon Jan 10, 2005 12:02 pm

RE: Mavis L

Post by ny59giants »

Hindsight is a great teacher. I often spend some PPs to save some of my Dutch units to use just in this situation, anti-para assault garrison. They get to a base and get 100% prep with a level 3 fort and it makes it hard for paras to take a base.

If he is using paras to be dropped in an non-base hex to cut off retreat, then that would be gamey, IMO.
[center]Image[/center]
rroberson
Posts: 2057
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:53 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

RE: Mavis L

Post by rroberson »

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Hindsight is a great teacher. I often spend some PPs to save some of my Dutch units to use just in this situation, anti-para assault garrison. They get to a base and get 100% prep with a level 3 fort and it makes it hard for paras to take a base.

If he is using paras to be dropped in an non-base hex to cut off retreat, then that would be gamey, IMO.
If he is using paras to be dropped in an non-base hex to cut off retreat, then that would be gamey, IMO.

nah it was the town west of perth (i forget the name now)...it wasnt the tactic it was the delivery device. Apparently it's not as big of a deal as I though...so i accept the shot to the groin :P...it's a great teacher as well.
Image
btbw
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:23 am

RE: Mavis L

Post by btbw »

Why you dont have garrisons in dot/base hexes? Even AV=100 or lesser (with fort and flak) can stop paratroops. Also LCU like regiment in strategic movement mode (parked in big base with anough troops) can help with future defense.
User avatar
SuluSea
Posts: 2378
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 2:13 pm

RE: Mavis L

Post by SuluSea »

Hi,

What you've shown here looks valid but it's what you can't see that can hurt you.
In a number of threads your opponent ( CV2?) has argued the validity of circumventing the PP system by purchasing restricted HQs despite being informed different by Ian and others that the PP system was intended to be used differently..

Here's one but there's a number of others.

Even though this program will never come close to simulating what the warrring powers faced during the conflict I play it for the historical lessons both while playing and reading the forum. Who am I to judge how another plays the game?

That said If he's throwing the book at you you may have to use the same tactics in combating them.

"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer
User avatar
dr.hal
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sat Jun 03, 2006 12:41 pm
Location: Covington LA via Montreal!

RE: Mavis L

Post by dr.hal »

Well the truth is, it's a game. Anything is doable within the rules that the two players set and the game allows. I play folks that like "historical" games where you can't pull off things like sending out picket ships "to die" simply because they would absorb an attack... but sending them out for radar warning is fair game. So to me a strange or unused tactic is not out of the question, but is subject TO question if totally outside historical reality. For example, using kingfisher aircraft as naval attack is fine, because they have an attack capability. Using aircraft in an unconventional way really does seem ok, as long as it is not outside of the realm of possibility. But if it is used to drop paratroopers into the middle of a country simply to disrupt "supply routes" with NO chance of that unit surviving, I think even for the Japanese player is unrealistic. In your case, it sounds like (but I don't have all the details) the move is ok, but does brush up against the ahistorical. That's fine as long as you don't have a house rule or understanding that such moves can't be done.
rroberson
Posts: 2057
Joined: Tue May 25, 2004 7:53 am
Location: Arizona
Contact:

RE: Mavis L

Post by rroberson »

ORIGINAL: btbw

Why you dont have garrisons in dot/base hexes? Even AV=100 or lesser (with fort and flak) can stop paratroops. Also LCU like regiment in strategic movement mode (parked in big base with anough troops) can help with future defense.


After similiar landings a took a look at the map and covered what I considered danger spots with troops. Burma frankly was something I was more worried about the Australia due to the range.

I didn't believe for a minute he would use a patrol plane to make the drops so much of south Australia was uncovered because I thought those areas were well out of paratrooper "range".

My mistake.
Image
btbw
Posts: 379
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:23 am

RE: Mavis L

Post by btbw »

ORIGINAL: dr.hal But if it is used to drop paratroopers into the middle of a country simply to disrupt "supply routes" with NO chance of that unit surviving, I think even for the Japanese player is unrealistic.
May be it new for you but you pronounced one of main target a whole kind of troops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Airborne_Troops
Post Reply

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