RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message


jwilkerson -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/17/2009 4:03:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elladan

Does lesson 1 apply to atoll assaults as well? If the answer is yes then the practical limit for invasion forces would be 1 reinforced regiment?


In focused play testing we've tried both reinforced regiments and full divisions in attacking tiny islands - "atolls". Both work. The limited amount of time needed to take an island (2-3 days usually) results in penalties that can be absorbed by the attackers provided lots of supply is brought.





witpqs -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/17/2009 4:19:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

The limited amount of time needed to take an island (2-3 days usually) results in penalties that can be absorbed by the attackers provided lots of supply is brought.


That sounds pretty right, BTW. I'm not an expert, but it has the right feel to it.




Andy Mac -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/17/2009 6:09:40 PM)

Yuh just dont try it without

1. Air Superiority
2. Naval Superiority
3. Amphibs to speed your unload rate

Allied players who try smash and grabs on atolls ....may...be able to take them - holding them thats a different kettle of fish - without 1 and 2 its dammed hard.

Defending atolls is almost nothing to do with land power and everything to do with air and naval power




Andy Mac -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/17/2009 6:11:03 PM)

You really really really really don't want a SAG getting in amongst LST's at anchor unloading they will get crucified the escorts will help but there is a limit




traskott -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/17/2009 6:29:21 PM)

So if you want to defend Midway as an allied in early 1942, putting 24th US division there without plenty air cover and/or carriers will result in a lot of joes dead ? 




Yamato hugger -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/17/2009 7:24:18 PM)

Putting a division on Midway will eat so many supplies so fast you wont be able to supply it fast enough. Midway has a stacking limit of 6,000 which is about a regiment. Anything beyond that is basically cannon fodder.




Iridium -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/17/2009 7:40:37 PM)

In other words, yes, lots of dead Joes. Stacking limits seem to make an interesting situation on deciding what appropriate combat/support ratios are needed at these islands now.

Do I want a base with mainly air support on it and barely any other types of troops or do I want the island to actually stand up to an attack for a few days?




Yamato hugger -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/17/2009 7:41:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elladan

Does lesson 1 apply to atoll assaults as well? If the answer is yes then the practical limit for invasion forces would be 1 reinforced regiment?


In this, I wasnt talking about the initial wave. Seems the first wave (or first day of landings if you will) all pretty much dump everything. Its the follow-ups I was talking about.




bradfordkay -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/17/2009 9:05:25 PM)

"One thing to note about tenders in AE: you need supplies on the tender for it to function"

How do you put supplies on an AD?




Mike Solli -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/17/2009 9:09:38 PM)

Tenders have a cargo capacity.  I saw a screen of one somewhere on one of these pages some time ago and asked why they had a cargo capacity.




Don Bowen -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/17/2009 9:19:08 PM)


Ammo ships and tenders have a cargo capacity. It indicates ability to rearm in the same way a port capacity does. Big tenders/ammo ships can rearm big ships - little ones can't.

Supply cargo on tenders and ammo ships works just like supply at ports. It is, in affect, ammunition on board and available for issuing to ships needing rearming. They can load (supply=ammo) from ports just like any other ship.









Mike Solli -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/17/2009 9:21:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Ammo ships and tenders have a cargo capacity. It indicates ability to rearm in the same way a port capacity does. Big tenders/ammo ships can rearm big ships - little ones can't.


Thanks Don. Is there any way to know what size a ship a specific tender can rearm?




Don Bowen -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/17/2009 9:35:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Solli


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Ammo ships and tenders have a cargo capacity. It indicates ability to rearm in the same way a port capacity does. Big tenders/ammo ships can rearm big ships - little ones can't.


Thanks Don. Is there any way to know what size a ship a specific tender can rearm?


Rearm cost is actually by individual device (i.e. weapon), not ship type. A BB that only needs MG ammo can rearm just about anywhere, etc.

There will be a table in the manual with representative costs and required rearm ports (thanks to JWE). I think all the calculations for rearm cost calculation are in there too.










Yamato hugger -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/17/2009 9:40:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen

There will be a table in the manual with representative costs and required rearm ports (thanks to JWE). I think all the calculations for rearm cost calculation are in there too.



Matrix should laminate this chart and include it separate in the box. With port size / ship cap on the back [:D]

Frankly, once its finalized, thats exactly what I plan to do.




Elladan -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/17/2009 9:58:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Putting a division on Midway will eat so many supplies so fast you wont be able to supply it fast enough. Midway has a stacking limit of 6,000 which is about a regiment. Anything beyond that is basically cannon fodder.


So in this theoretical situation in which I would have 1 division on Midway and no other troops there, how many supplies per month would I need to keep it fully supplied? Just to see things in the right perspective.




Andy Mac -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/17/2009 10:32:10 PM)

A full strength US Inf Div requires 1,100 tonnes per month or c 39 tonnes per day

In combat mode and under attack that requirement doubles so 80 tonnes per day and 2,200 per month

A Div has c 13,000 men so roughly 220%

For every 10% overstacked supply requirement goes up an additional 20% for every unit on the atoll.

So base Supply 1,100
Penalty Supply 22 - 10 x 20% i.e. 240% supply penalty

So that Div now requires 340% of normal supply or about 3,800 per month

In combat that means it needs 7,600 per month actually thats a lot.....

A div in all honesty is just about liveable with on an atoll its tight and cramped but just about doable....

Now 2 Divs = 26,000 men thats 440% overstacked ?

So thats 44 - 10 x 20% or 680% supply penalty

So thats 1,100 x 2 Div = 2,200 x 680% = c 14,000 suply per month or 28,000 in combat mode.

On attack I never bring more than a Div on defence I will run to about 20 or 30% overstacked if I must but I dont like doing it.

Andy




Elladan -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/17/2009 11:45:32 PM)

Thanks Andy, It clears a lot. I pressume the actual force allotment will depend much on particular situation in the game. Things will really get more interesting in AE :)




traskott -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/18/2009 11:07:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Putting a division on Midway will eat so many supplies so fast you wont be able to supply it fast enough. Midway has a stacking limit of 6,000 which is about a regiment. Anything beyond that is basically cannon fodder.


Thank you. I really love this feature. No more "stacks of the death over the Pacific" !! [&o][&o]




castor troy -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/18/2009 12:07:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Elladan

Thanks Andy, It clears a lot. I pressume the actual force allotment will depend much on particular situation in the game. Things will really get more interesting in AE :)



IMO it will get more realistic (as it should be) but in the case of atolls not more interesting as atolls are far more easy to take in AE than in WITP from what Iīve read so far. In WITP you were never really sure about what to do with the atolls as you could easily run into 50.000 defenders behing level 9 forts which lead to D-day like invasions against some Pacific atolls. In AE you bring 5 divs, land one or two, if you donīt take it throw another one into the fight and pick up the other two. With the stacking limit it makes it far more easy to estimate what you will need to take the place.

More realistic but not more interesting for the game play, at least not for me. Thatīs no critiscm, I always thought stacking limits are a must as itīs just too unrealistic if you encounter 75.000 soldiers on Canton Island.




Andy Mac -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/18/2009 12:16:05 PM)

Yeah but this goes both ways.

If the allies over stretch and cannot maintain Air or Naval Supremecy you could lose a lot of LCU's

i.e. if the Allies lets say decide to sieze Kwajalein via coup de main in the early phase of the game its probabbly easier for them to do so now if they commit enough resources.

BUT can they hold it ?

The Japanese can bring in KB/Mrs Betty regain air supremacy and naval supremacy and the allies cannot stack multi divs to ensure they hold the atoll so suddenly the japanese reinvade with full support because they only lost 6,000 men on the atoll in the first place so they have force to spare back at the Marianas to retake it.

The 6,000 limit makes both sides more carefull...

Against PZB I staged a mutli corps invasion from Marcus and Wake that would be total lunacy now

The Marianas are vital now, so is Iwo Jima so is Tarawa

Nothing else in the Central Pacific can take a sizeable garrison until you get to Fiji/New Cal or Pearl.

What I am saying is individual atolls are unimportant UNLESS you have the air and sea power to protect them




Mistmatz -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/18/2009 12:17:39 PM)

I guess with the atoll stuff things are clearer on a tactical level (ie easy to take, harder to defend) but the strategic gameplay may change. More chances for carrier engagements for instance, stuff liek this. Will be interesting to read the first AARs that go into late '42 early '43.

Btw. are the US carriers still respawning 500 (?) days after their sinking? Personally I hope this 'feature' got removed but haven't read anything regarding the issue so far.




Andy Mac -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/18/2009 12:24:30 PM)

Don't get me wrong a Marine Div force (2 Regts assaulting) landing into an IJA Regt behind lvl 6 forts on an atoll will get chewed up badly they can probably take it with enough air and sea support but it wont be pretty.

Same situation where the defender is an IJA Bn or a SNLF with a base force or an Aviation Bn - the Div probably rolls right over it

The need for good recon and planning is now pre eminent.

Sometimes an atoll just isnt worth defending......




Andy Mac -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/18/2009 12:26:26 PM)

What you will find is a lot of trip wire forces on atolls just enough to stop a Bn level assault by Parachute or FT but not enough that if a serious invasion comes along that its a material loss.




Dili -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/18/2009 2:04:24 PM)

Will this force the end of Island hopping and the establishment of more wither on the wine? The Game question is if the Japanese player can use some of those attols to start raids into Allies supply line and make possible for a dynamic campaign that can vary the player choices making it more interesting instead of a setpiece strategy defined from start.




foliveti -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/18/2009 2:32:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Ammo ships and tenders have a cargo capacity. It indicates ability to rearm in the same way a port capacity does. Big tenders/ammo ships can rearm big ships - little ones can't.

Supply cargo on tenders and ammo ships works just like supply at ports. It is, in affect, ammunition on board and available for issuing to ships needing rearming. They can load (supply=ammo) from ports just like any other ship.










Will it be necessary to manually reload supply for tenders if they are anchored or docked at a port, or can this be set to occur automatically. I like the feature, I am just concerned about turns eating up more time on details like this. I am about a 90 minute turn guy as it is.




Don Bowen -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/18/2009 3:37:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: foliveti


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen


Ammo ships and tenders have a cargo capacity. It indicates ability to rearm in the same way a port capacity does. Big tenders/ammo ships can rearm big ships - little ones can't.

Supply cargo on tenders and ammo ships works just like supply at ports. It is, in affect, ammunition on board and available for issuing to ships needing rearming. They can load (supply=ammo) from ports just like any other ship.










Will it be necessary to manually reload supply for tenders if they are anchored or docked at a port, or can this be set to occur automatically. I like the feature, I am just concerned about turns eating up more time on details like this. I am about a 90 minute turn guy as it is.



There is no automatic function. It is quite possible that the tender may need to go somewhere else for it's supply (ammo).




Grotius -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/18/2009 3:48:26 PM)

I hope it's not *too* easy to take atolls now. I gather you guys have reduced the maximum number of fortifications on atolls. Can't one make a case that a small island is easier to "fortify" than a large one?




Iridium -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/18/2009 4:03:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Grotius

I hope it's not *too* easy to take atolls now. I gather you guys have reduced the maximum number of fortifications on atolls. Can't one make a case that a small island is easier to "fortify" than a large one?


Because there is less room to fortify, there is less depth to the defensive fortifications as well. Sure, there's less area to fortify but there is also only so much one can do in a limited space surrounded by an endless sea. At least I imagine that would be the reasoning behind any fort limit on atolls.

Don't expect any elastic defenses on an atoll, most likely all static defenses with very little in terms of secondary lines of defense, probably just supply/communication lines behind the primary line.




Yamato hugger -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/18/2009 7:59:46 PM)

Dec 19:

We had a new build come out and we played around with it a little and decided to stick with the old one, so I had to re-create the last days battles. Sorry for the delay.

3 AKs carrying a base force and a Jake squadron were intercepted off Iba by 2 DDs and sunk. They then engaged the 4 PBs that were supposed to be escorting the AKs but fell behind putting heavy fires and damage on 3 of them. One of the DDs also took heavy fires and damage and although it was never reported sunk, it hasnt been seen since. 3 TBs engage 6 PTs at San Fernando and sink all 6 for no damage to themselves. The remaining DD runs into these 3 TBs and takes heavy damage and fires. No hits on the TBs. These 2 forces contact each other 3 more times as the US force makes it way towards Manila and the Japanese force heads to Busuanga but not another shot is fired between them.

3 SCs (sub chasers) attacked the Sailfish off Laoag hitting her 3 times. An attack in the afternoon by the same 3 SCs produce the same result: 3 more hits.

4th mxd reg begins unloading at Kuching.

I/81st nav gd begins to unload at Pontianak.

Sweep of Singapore by 5 Zeros finds nothing in the air. 78 Bettys and Nells raid in the afternoon destroying 4 planes on the ground and causing minor damage.

Sweep of Manila downs 1 P-40

Bombing of several ground units in central China. He appears to be pulling back.

6 Blenheims attacked battle division 5s Fuso at Singkawang in NW Borneo. 1 attacker shot down, no hits. A later attack by 4 more no hits on Fuso. 3 more attacked a DD 150 miles north of Singkawang no hits.

3 P-40s raid Busuanga. 7 Zeros and 3 Jakes on CAP shoot down 2. 16 more attack later and down all 3 Jakes and a Zero for no loss. 6 more come back in the afternoon with 5 Zeros on Cap losing 2 P-40s to 3 Zeros.

15 P-35s attack the airfield at Tuguegarao. 2 Zeros intercept and between them and the AA they down 1 and damage 8. Light damage to the field.

2 B-10s and 5 P-26s of the Phil air force attack transports unloading the bulk of the 48th div at Atimonan for no effect. 2 P-26s attack in the afternoon hitting an empty AK with 1 bomb.

5 Blenheim VIs attack transports unloading at Kuching for no effect.

7 Zeros sweep Rangoon and down 2 of 3 Buffs.

Sallys raid Tavoy for light damage.

Hong Kong bombed for light damage.

British ground troops attacked at Taipang. It looks as if he may try to slow my advance by fighting there. 5 units reported in the base.

2nd Yokosuka SNLF unloads on Sambas (1 hex west of Kuching).

8th tank reg attacks 2nd bn of the PA 101st reg at Cotabato on Mindanao at 32:1 driving it back.

65th bde attacks 1st bn at Cayagan driving it up into the hills at 438:1.

Troops at Wake attack at 1:3. More troops enroute. Evacuation ships ar standing by.




khyberbill -> RE: Round two - DING YH v TS (2/18/2009 8:12:10 PM)

quote:

Btw. are the US carriers still respawning 500 (?) days after their sinking? Personally I hope this 'feature' got removed but haven't read anything regarding the issue so far.

There is a thread somewhere else (Navy ?) that basically says no respawning. That is because, unlike WITP, all the US carriers arrive[&o].




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 [5] 6 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.03125