Matrix Games Forums

Battle Academy is now available on SteamPlayers compare Ageods Civil War to Civil War IIDeal of the week - An updated War in the East goes half Price!Sign up for the Qvadriga beta for iPad and Android!Come and say hi at Pax and SaluteLegends of War goes on sale!Piercing Fortress Europa Gets UpdatedBattle Academy Mega Pack is now availableClose Combat: Gateway to Caen Teaser TrailerDeal of the Week Alea Jacta Est
Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: Mavis L

 
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: Mavis L Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Mavis L - 11/8/2012 1:48:42 PM   
Chris H

 

Posts: 3349
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Bexhill-on-Sea, E Sussex
Status: offline
Considering he's got troops in Aus already and I assume has taken a base or two why not drop Paras behind your lines. I've moved troops behind the line lines, mostly by foot in the DEA, Malaya, Burma, Philippines etc but where I couldn't I've dropped paras but I have moved a whole unit over three or four turns. You don't get many Mavis L so it would probably take to long to move a whole unit but I've never tried with the Mavis, never had need of the range. Whatever forward bases he has will probably have combat aircraft on them and given the distances involved the Mavis L will be the only option if he wants to cut the lines of supply.

Given the small number that can be dropped in one go any small unit should be able to oust the Paras whereever they are dropped and if I remember right Aus has a number of Arm Bn that would do the job.


Having said all that I'd be annoyed particularly if I did not keep a research behind the lines.

< Message edited by Chris H -- 11/8/2012 1:50:29 PM >

(in reply to Barb)
Post #: 31
RE: Mavis L - 11/8/2012 3:29:05 PM   
Puhis

 

Posts: 1687
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
Japanese para units are really tiny. Assault value of IJA raiding regiment is just 39, and navy units are even smaller, AV=30. Any kind of garrison with forts should be enough vs. japanese paras.

(in reply to Chris H)
Post #: 32
RE: Mavis L - 11/8/2012 9:28:01 PM   
Chris H

 

Posts: 3349
Joined: 1/17/2002
From: Bexhill-on-Sea, E Sussex
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Japanese para units are really tiny. Assault value of IJA raiding regiment is just 39, and navy units are even smaller, AV=30. Any kind of garrison with forts should be enough vs. japanese paras.


Yes, that's what I meant by small units. Using the Mavis L with so few of them would result in even less being dropped in one go.

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 33
RE: Mavis L - 11/8/2012 11:19:09 PM   
PaxMondo


Posts: 5459
Joined: 6/6/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chris H


quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

Japanese para units are really tiny. Assault value of IJA raiding regiment is just 39, and navy units are even smaller, AV=30. Any kind of garrison with forts should be enough vs. japanese paras.


Yes, that's what I meant by small units. Using the Mavis L with so few of them would result in even less being dropped in one go.

Doesn't take too many Mavis L to transport the entire unit. As noted, they are small.

_____________________________

Pax

(in reply to Chris H)
Post #: 34
RE: Mavis L - 11/10/2012 8:25:23 AM   
inqistor


Posts: 1332
Joined: 5/12/2010
Status: offline
Transport plane is a transport plane. I see no problem. In few years, you will have ten times as much transport planes, and three times more parachute units.


There was actually at least one instance, where Japan landed some AT guns at nearby lake (by EMILY IIRC), as support for parachute operation

(in reply to PaxMondo)
Post #: 35
RE: Mavis L - 11/12/2012 3:01:31 AM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1544
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
Are you objecting to the possibility of paras airdropping out of a float plane, or the tactic of taking undefended bases using small fragments?

I never stopped to think about the Mavis' ability to air drop troops. I just assumed that since they were categorized as transports they could. But now that you've brought this up, would the float get in the way of the guys jumping out the side doors, and thereby prevent them from being used to paradrop?

If you're concerned about the tactic of taking undefended bases, just garrison those bases with a tiny unit/fragment of your own. Japanese paras can't dislodge a group of schoolgirls armed with slingshots, so it shouldn't take much to deter your opponent from using this tactic.

By the way, I've been using the Mavis L and the regular patrol version to take undefended bases and dot hexes in the Philippines and SRA. In my PBEM, we have a HR limiting para units to only two fragments plus the parent, so I use a couple of squadrons of the Mavis to drop on two bases every other turn. Drop, pickup, drop somewhere else, pick up . . . . . Since they are float-equipped, they are very handy for picking guys up at dot hexes and bases with just a port.

(in reply to rroberson)
Post #: 36
RE: Mavis L - 11/12/2012 5:00:25 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5030
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline
I dont know if the Mavis was capable of paratroop dropping, certainly it could be used to occupy coastal/island bases.
But the game doesnt differentiate between tranport types.
IMVHO its fringe gamey, but as mentioned you can always use your lerger numbers of PBY/Catalina etc to keep him honest by retaliating.

For those suggesting 100AV garrisons of rear bases, if he had this amount of troops he probably wouldnt find WA being invaded.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 37
RE: Mavis L - 11/12/2012 5:57:09 AM   
btbw

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I dont know if the Mavis was capable of paratroop dropping

Dont see reason why cannot.
Usually he used for bring heavy weapon sections of paratroops (like AT-gun and HMG) like gliders (with land in any water close).
quote:

certainly it could be used to occupy coastal/island bases


Or base cloe to river or lake.

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 38
RE: Mavis L - 11/12/2012 6:40:53 AM   
JeffK


Posts: 5030
Joined: 1/26/2005
From: Back in the Office, Can I get my tin hut back!
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: btbw


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I dont know if the Mavis was capable of paratroop dropping

Dont see reason why cannot.
Usually he used for bring heavy weapon sections of paratroops (like AT-gun and HMG) like gliders (with land in any water close).
quote:

certainly it could be used to occupy coastal/island bases


Or base cloe to river or lake.

There is a big difference between a para drop and using the aircraft as a transport.

I dont remember seeing any water around Kalgoorlie let alone a lake, and no way would it land on any river short of a Nile/Irrawaddy sized monster.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 39
RE: Mavis L - 11/12/2012 8:31:37 AM   
obvert


Posts: 6238
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

I dont know if the Mavis was capable of paratroop dropping, certainly it could be used to occupy coastal/island bases.
But the game doesnt differentiate between tranport types.
IMVHO its fringe gamey, but as mentioned you can always use your lerger numbers of PBY/Catalina etc to keep him honest by retaliating.

For those suggesting 100AV garrisons of rear bases, if he had this amount of troops he probably wouldnt find WA being invaded.


Here is a pic of a Mavis-L. I'm pretty sure looking at where the door is that 15-20 guys with guns inside could slip out with parachutes on. This whole thread is a non-issue really. The reason it was used most likely is that it has immensely long range.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to JeffK)
Post #: 40
RE: Mavis L - 11/12/2012 11:13:58 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 2647
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: The deepest, darkest pit of hell
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MrBlizzard

Hi all, in WII Japan made large use of suicidal missions, 'kamikaze' is a japanese word indeed,
I'm not only referring to famous suicidal air attacks of late war; in many situations suicidal attacks were made, for instance at Corregidor special units walked deliberately through the minefields to open a path for other troops. No other army would have done the same so widely.
So, if the target is very valuable, a Japanese unit can be sacrificed, to me isn't gamey. But this should be a real sacrifice and a costly tactitcs.
I mean you should use the whole unit, not just a fragment; using a small fragment is very gamey to me, you can't believe that a fragment of 10 men can control a town, the countrymen could take their rifles and shoot them easily. Also, if you use fragments you have plenty of them and you can feel free to use them for every target, more or less important, this tactics that costs the supreme sacrifice is less believable for small valuable targets.


There was also an attack on US airfields on Okinawa with Japanese commando units inserted by crashlandig their transport planes (more attacks were planned) - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giretsu_Kuteitai

Using a small fragment of a few lightly armed para squads to block the retreat paths in a hex 40 miles across is physically impossible, even with topographic bottlenecks. A retreating enemy force would either smash through, exfiltrate around or not even come in contact with such a tiny force. IMO this is abusing the game engine and thus gamey - no matter whether this is done with Mavis L or regular transports.

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 11/12/2012 11:15:31 AM >


_____________________________

Carpe Cerevisiam



WitP AAR "Six Years of War"

(in reply to MrBlizzard)
Post #: 41
RE: Mavis L - 11/12/2012 12:07:50 PM   
btbw

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
So it question of game engine, not Mavis-L.
If game count any LCU in empty hex as enough for hold it then why we talk only about paratroops? I can surround a few IDs with flak sections and enemy dont move from that place.

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 42
RE: Mavis L - 11/12/2012 12:19:05 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 2647
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: The deepest, darkest pit of hell
Status: offline
Yes and no.

Since only units flagged as para units can be airdropped, your flak units would have to move overland. This makes it difficult to surround enemy units - they could slip out of the trap before your troops have marched around them. So the game engine gives a "fighting chance" to avoid getting surrounded by ordinary ground units.

But Para fragments can be airdropped to provide "instant roadblocks".

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 11/12/2012 12:21:47 PM >


_____________________________

Carpe Cerevisiam



WitP AAR "Six Years of War"

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 43
RE: Mavis L - 11/12/2012 2:53:27 PM   
obvert


Posts: 6238
Joined: 1/17/2011
From: PDX (and now) London, UK
Status: offline
From the OP-

quote:

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.


This seems something that must be decided between opponents. There are plenty of things that don't fit reality in the game. The OP was simply concerned that the 'seaplanes' [flying boats] were the units ferrying the paras. Of course it's inconceivable 200 Japanese paratroops could have held a booming gold-rush town full of swarthy Aussies with hunting rifles, but the whole rail concept in the game is bit off. What about the vulnerability of troops on the rails to air attack? Plenty of footage of trains getting shot up by US planes in Europe.

Anyway, the Mavis could have done the drop. The question is more between the players of whether this use of paras is valid.

_____________________________

"Success is the ability to go from one failure to another with no loss of enthusiasm." - Winston Churchill

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 44
RE: Mavis L - 11/12/2012 3:13:11 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 2647
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: The deepest, darkest pit of hell
Status: offline
AFAIK units in strategic mode (i.e. rail movement) are more vulnerable to air attacks and suffer higher losses than they would suffer in movement or combat modes.

_____________________________

Carpe Cerevisiam



WitP AAR "Six Years of War"

(in reply to obvert)
Post #: 45
RE: Mavis L - 11/13/2012 12:05:55 AM   
rroberson

 

Posts: 1938
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: online
Hey guys, I just got back from a weekend trip to Seattle and was surprised this thread was still going.

The issue isn't really just the paratroopers and how he is deploying them. By in large I try to play a straight game and avoid gameyness as much as I can. When I stumble I expect my opponent to point it out and we agree to some sort of compromise.

This isnt the first thing I had questions about.

Earlier in our game I watched the most amazing blitzkrieg I have ever seen in China. What made it equally amazing was while he was rolling through China like I didn't have troops in place to slow him down, he was doing the same in the Philippines, Burma, Malasia and Australia. He even made a side trip and conquered all of Alaska.

Now, I kept questioning where he was getting all these boots.

Well someone provided me this clue Restricted HQ transfers

So he is about a month fresh off of invading alaska with "divisions" of troops. He has divisions in Northern Australia and now in western Australia ...more divisions. Never mind the divisions he has strung out all over China and in Burma. Maybe Im being a bad sport, I don't know. But his bottomless pit of boots has to be coming from his use of Restricted HQ transfers.

Now that is as about as gamey of a tactic as they come. I am a long time player of the Empire and consider myself fairly well versed in their start up Order of Battle and what I was seeing just didn't jive with what I knew was in the field.

I really don't enjoy a game where I feel like I have to counter gamey tactics at every turn. Upon further review his use of the Mavis L to drop paratroopers is on the "fringe" of gamey. Looking at that beast in a picture it's doubtful someone would have thought to use it in the war and much like when vanilla WITP was mines of the pacific it just wasn't how the developers intended the game to be played and took away from the spirit of the game.

But it is something I could have lived with because it wasn't that BIG OF A DEAL...in the grand scheme of the game.

So for me the Mavis L being used as paradrop transport was really that final shoe to drop on the game. Part of it was certainly frustration that once again another invasion was being conducted using massed divisions. But then seeing the paratroops drop at a position so far away from any of his airfield. Yeah, I cried foul a bit.

I like to play the game as it was intended. Which is my play style. I try to avoid such things. It's not his play style which is fine. Lots of diversity here between players. But I do believe that the two players in a game which requires this kind of commitment need to reach compromises before AND during the game. Other wise the fun get's thrown out the door. And at the end of the day, it is suppose to be fun. He is very unwilling to compromise when I question things. Always citing this that or the other.

And that is where my real issue is.

Anyway I just wanted to update this thread since it was still going fairly strong.

< Message edited by rroberson -- 11/13/2012 12:18:05 AM >


_____________________________


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 46
RE: Mavis L - 11/13/2012 4:01:55 AM   
rroberson

 

Posts: 1938
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: online
And in a final note from my opponent after my resignation where he admits to using the special unit HQ transfer super saver.

What commands are you releasing your units to? Dollars to doughnuts you are not buying them out at full price either. US units to IX corps, Aussies to 1st Aus corps, and Indian units likely to air HQs (personally, I transfer the Burma HQ to India so my units are at least in a ground HQ) I'll bet. Your air units, same thing I will bet. Yes, I transfer command of 25th army to Korea, 15th army to China, and 16th army to Japan. So, you can release ALL your units at a reduced cost, yet complain that I do. Interesting...

But of all the units I have released from those areas, the only ones you have encountered are:
1st div in Alaska. First use: Jul 42.
8th div in Port Moresby. First use: Apr 42.
9th div in Port Moresby. First use: Apr 42.
14th div on Luzon and Port Moresby. First use: Luzon in Feb 42
20th div at Adak. First use: Aug 42.
24th div at Geraldton. First use: Oct 42.
26th, 32nd, 41st out of China, badly shot up so it didnt cost much went to Japan, rebuilt and used at Perth.

Units released that you havent encountered:
7th div (Guadalcanal)
10th div (Munda)
12th div (Shortlands)
19th div (Port Moresby)

Hardly an abusive number of troops. Certainly well within the totals I could have released by now. The 2nd, 4th, 5th, 16th, 18th, 21st, 33rd, 38th, 48th, 55th, 56th, Imp Gd, 4th Gd, 5th Gd, 6th Gd, Gd Armor, and a half dozen garrison units which are baby divisions (not counting many bdes and regts) are all units that I get that I dont have to pay to release.

Frankly not surprised by this though. Knew this game wouldnt last when you "surrendered" after your carrier losses.


now again, not against our agreed original rules, but once I recognized it was happening and protested it...every other player I have ever played would have reached some middle ground about it. Taking advantage of the software...not so much fun.

And in a note to his maturity the attempt at a dig at the end of his note.

The longer I play this silly game the more I learn. This time it was a people lesson.

Onward and upward.

_____________________________


(in reply to rroberson)
Post #: 47
RE: Mavis L - 11/13/2012 11:09:01 AM   
btbw

 

Posts: 360
Joined: 11/1/2011
Status: offline
What Scenario you playing?

(in reply to rroberson)
Post #: 48
RE: Mavis L - 11/13/2012 6:12:51 PM   
Commander Stormwolf

 

Posts: 1620
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline

honestly i would like to have a "political points off" option, so troops can be allocated as the player sees fit

but yes para fragments is pretty gamey

_____________________________

"No Enemy Survives Contact with the Plan" - Commander Stormwolf

(in reply to btbw)
Post #: 49
RE: Mavis L - 11/13/2012 8:43:28 PM   
rroberson

 

Posts: 1938
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: online
@ btbw scenario 2.



_____________________________


(in reply to Commander Stormwolf)
Post #: 50
RE: Mavis L - 11/13/2012 8:52:38 PM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 2898
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: online
Rob - we need to talk rematch

Xargun

(in reply to rroberson)
Post #: 51
RE: Mavis L - 11/14/2012 12:10:42 AM   
rroberson

 

Posts: 1938
Joined: 5/25/2004
From: Arizona
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: Xargun

Rob - we need to talk rematch

Xargun




bring it.

There is a scenario created by nik that has all the units placed in the right area at may 42. The issue is that these units lack training and all the shipping is...placed in interesting places. A bit of work and it might be exactly what we talked about before. Im playing it with someone else...and once you get it sorted its pretty interesting.

_____________________________


(in reply to Xargun)
Post #: 52
RE: Mavis L - 11/14/2012 2:41:01 AM   
Xargun

 

Posts: 2898
Joined: 2/14/2004
Status: online

quote:

ORIGINAL: rroberson

bring it.

There is a scenario created by nik that has all the units placed in the right area at may 42. The issue is that these units lack training and all the shipping is...placed in interesting places. A bit of work and it might be exactly what we talked about before. Im playing it with someone else...and once you get it sorted its pretty interesting.


I think I saw that - I'll find you on messenger and we can discuss

Xargun

(in reply to rroberson)
Post #: 53
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Mavis L 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

0.098