Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Is this a gamey tactic?

 
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 >> Is this a gamey tactic? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 4:57:51 PM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1610
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
I'm starting a GC game as the Japanese and was thinking of dropping relatively small para fragments on some of the unoccupied bases in N Luzon (Laoag, Aparri, Vigan) while simultaneously landing some amphibious troops. I am doing this so that the amphibious troops will be able to start moving South one turn earlier. (If I just used the amphibious troops, they would have to attack the turn after they land to secure the base. By using paras at the same time, the paras should take the base using their automatic shock attack. This way, the amphibious troops can save a turn.)

I know there are lots of house rules people use regarding para fragments (and I generally agree with them). However, this use seems perfectly reasonable. If you KNOW the base has no enemy troops present, why not just land a few squads to secure the area prior to the arrival of your main force?

So, my question would be "Is this use of para fragments gamey?".
Post #: 1
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 5:02:18 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline
IMO, no.

(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 2
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 5:02:37 PM   
Schanilec

 

Posts: 4040
Joined: 6/12/2010
From: Grand Forks, ND
Status: offline
I don't think its gamey at all. IJA used paratroops in the DEI.

_____________________________

This is one Czech that doesn't bounce.

(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 3
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 5:15:48 PM   
cantona2


Posts: 3749
Joined: 5/21/2007
From: Gibraltar
Status: offline
It all depends on what you and your opponent agree upon. A lot of PBEM HRs suggest a para drop with the entire unit in one location rather that fragments all over the place. If you have already agreed a HR for paras then no probs, if in doubt I always ask my opponent what he thinks about a particular rule before carrying the move out.

_____________________________

1966 was a great year for English Football...Eric was born


(in reply to Schanilec)
Post #: 4
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 5:21:12 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26012
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
It is gamey to use small fragments, IMO. You should make a best effort to drop a whole unit on one place, not drop fragments of the same unit in multiple locales.

(in reply to cantona2)
Post #: 5
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 5:23:46 PM   
TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum


Posts: 312
Joined: 1/12/2010
Status: offline
I happen to agree with witpqs opinion, that to drop tiny fragments to capture bases is gamey.

Dropping the whole unit on a base? Perfectly fine and a viable tactic.

For Turn 1, you have 2 para units you can use in Luzon, that's 2 areas where you can land and free up units, which is plenty IMHO.

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 6
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 5:54:56 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline
Agree with my Argletonian colleague and TLG.

Ask yourself the question: Is it realistic that a small para fragment-basically a squad or two of troops can reliably capture a critical crossroads and lay claim to a 40 mile hex? It's almost a stretch to think about a whole para unit (as small as it is) doing that, let alone a multitude of fragments.



_____________________________

Post #: 7
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 6:08:57 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Chickenboy

Agree with my Argletonian colleague and TLG.

Ask yourself the question: Is it realistic that a small para fragment-basically a squad or two of troops can reliably capture a critical crossroads and lay claim to a 40 mile hex? It's almost a stretch to think about a whole para unit (as small as it is) doing that, let alone a multitude of fragments.




Agree. Paras were particularly prone to disruption and scattering. These are 46-mile hexes.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Chickenboy)
Post #: 8
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 6:35:13 PM   
Schorsch

 

Posts: 81
Joined: 1/25/2010
From: Germany
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Puhis

IMO, no.


+1

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 9
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 6:56:01 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
Former paratrooper..I say not gamey, sounds like a realistic mission to me.

For those who mention the size of the hexes, I ask how accurate the drop was on St Mere Eglise and how long did it take to get there?

The point is, if that was the mission, they "got there".

_____________________________




(in reply to Schorsch)
Post #: 10
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 7:10:34 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26012
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Former paratrooper..I say not gamey, sounds like a realistic mission to me.

For those who mention the size of the hexes, I ask how accurate the drop was on St Mere Eglise and how long did it take to get there?

The point is, if that was the mission, they "got there".


But Bob, he's talking about small fragments of the same para unit dropping on multiple bases. I totally have no problem with dropping paras, and I have no problem with dropping paras in conjunction with either over-land or amphib assaults. The fact that dropping paras cuts defending Assault Strength by 1/2 is fine with me too, because it does represent the kind of IRL disruption that you are alluding to (on that point I only think it should be some reasonable proportion: dropping a company-sized para unit on a stack of 150,000 defenders to cut their AS for the main overland attack would be gamey only because it is too few paras and the game engine does not distinguish number of paras involved, only that they are dropped).

I only object to small fragments of the same para unit being dropped into multiple bases. I even realize you might not successfully drop the whole para unit (because of air transport vagaries), that's why I say "best effort" to drop the whole unit. I love having paras in the game.

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 11
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 7:12:22 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3917
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline
Gamey. To me base control represents inherent civilian governmental organizations and/or military presence sufficient to enjoy the benefits of ownership of a hex. Imo a fragment isn't enough to overcome those forces and obtain approx. 1600 sq. miles of land.

(in reply to Schorsch)
Post #: 12
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 7:20:49 PM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1610
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheLoneGunman

I happen to agree with witpqs opinion, that to drop tiny fragments to capture bases is gamey.

Dropping the whole unit on a base? Perfectly fine and a viable tactic.

For Turn 1, you have 2 para units you can use in Luzon, that's 2 areas where you can land and free up units, which is plenty IMHO.



I agree that if you are only using paras and no other units, it would be gamey. But I am using them in conjuntion with amphibious forces on known-to-be-empty enemy bases.

I guess I should have mentioned in my original post that I basically just don't like the idea that an amphibious force (landing in a non-atoll hex) has to wait an extra turn before they can start moving inland. You have to land on turn 1, attack on turn 2 then, and only then, move out on turn 3. With the simultaneous para drop, you land and get the attack on turn 1 so you can move on turn 2.

It just seems ridiculous to me that 10k+ guys landing on an empty beach need 24 hours to secure the location. This use of paras seems to be a simple (and at least semi-plausible) way around this.
Post #: 13
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 7:23:27 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

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

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

I know there are lots of house rules people use regarding para fragments (and I generally agree with them). However, this use seems perfectly reasonable. If you KNOW the base has no enemy troops present, why not just land a few squads to secure the area prior to the arrival of your main force?

So, my question would be "Is this use of para fragments gamey?".



GAMEY! You KNOW because you can examine the game at leisure. The Japanese did not KNOW that any particular base was going to be unoccupied on that particular morning..., only that Northern Luzon was "lightly defended". Basically, any time you think you have to ask if something is "gamey", it is.

(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 14
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 7:24:10 PM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1610
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Gamey. To me base control represents inherent civilian governmental organizations and/or military presence sufficient to enjoy the benefits of ownership of a hex. Imo a fragment isn't enough to overcome those forces and obtain approx. 1600 sq. miles of land.


But you're not necessarily worried about the entire hex. In the situation I'm proposing, we're just talking about securing a pier or two and/or a small fighter strip. Example = Vigan - port size 1, airfield size 2. 50-100 guys should do the trick, right?

(in reply to anarchyintheuk)
Post #: 15
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 7:29:35 PM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1610
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

I know there are lots of house rules people use regarding para fragments (and I generally agree with them). However, this use seems perfectly reasonable. If you KNOW the base has no enemy troops present, why not just land a few squads to secure the area prior to the arrival of your main force?

So, my question would be "Is this use of para fragments gamey?".



GAMEY! You KNOW because you can examine the game at leisure. The Japanese did not KNOW that any particular base was going to be unoccupied on that particular morning..., only that Northern Luzon was "lightly defended". Basically, any time you think you have to ask if something is "gamey", it is.


Okay, poor word choice on my part. "Know" implies certainty. How about "have a high degree of confidence that"? If the paras drop and the enemy was in fact absent, then they could secure the essential, unoccupied base facilities in short order. If the paras drop and the enemy was present, then the tiny fragment is wiped out, you don't secure the base and you lose a 100 or so troops.


(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 16
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 7:34:50 PM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1610
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
Weren't there tons of instances in WWII where commandos went into lightly defended areas to secure important crossroads, ports and airstrips? Maybe 100 or so guys airdropped or landed in small craft under the cover of darkness?

For example, in the Battle of the Bulge, didnt' the Germans utilize a small airborne unit dropped in the intended path of Kampfgroup Peiper? If I recall correctly, these guys operated in small groups changing road signs and creating general chaos in advance of Peiper. In addition, I vaguely remember "Grief" teams also from the Battle of the Bulge. These were small groups of infantry that infiltrated the American lines and secured key objectives in advance of the main force.

This is how I'm envisioning these para fragments I'm talking about in my original post. Using them by themselves is DEFINITELY gamey. Using them in concert with a larger force for the sole purpose of scouting and speeding the advance of that force - seems possible to me.

< Message edited by Icedawg -- 12/13/2010 7:43:01 PM >

(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 17
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 7:39:14 PM   
mike scholl 1

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

I know there are lots of house rules people use regarding para fragments (and I generally agree with them). However, this use seems perfectly reasonable. If you KNOW the base has no enemy troops present, why not just land a few squads to secure the area prior to the arrival of your main force?

So, my question would be "Is this use of para fragments gamey?".



GAMEY! You KNOW because you can examine the game at leisure. The Japanese did not KNOW that any particular base was going to be unoccupied on that particular morning..., only that Northern Luzon was "lightly defended". Basically, any time you think you have to ask if something is "gamey", it is.


Okay, poor word choice on my part. "Know" implies certainty. How about "have a high degree of confidence that"? If the paras drop and the enemy was in fact absent, then they could secure the essential, unoccupied base facilities in short order. If the paras drop and the enemy was present, then the tiny fragment is wiped out, you don't secure the base and you lose a 100 or so troops.




Problem is that you DO "know". It's a game, and you are making use of information your real life counterparts had no way of knowing..., the definition of "gamey".

If you Allies had the option of redeploying their assets before you moved, you would have a point. They don't..., so your explanation is just semantics.

(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 18
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 7:44:48 PM   
cookie monster


Posts: 1693
Joined: 5/22/2005
From: Birmingham,England
Status: offline
Its not gamey if you use 1 para unit per base, so theres two you can capture in Luzon at the start.

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 19
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 8:03:03 PM   
Icedawg


Posts: 1610
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: Upstate New York
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1


quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

quote:

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

I know there are lots of house rules people use regarding para fragments (and I generally agree with them). However, this use seems perfectly reasonable. If you KNOW the base has no enemy troops present, why not just land a few squads to secure the area prior to the arrival of your main force?

So, my question would be "Is this use of para fragments gamey?".



GAMEY! You KNOW because you can examine the game at leisure. The Japanese did not KNOW that any particular base was going to be unoccupied on that particular morning..., only that Northern Luzon was "lightly defended". Basically, any time you think you have to ask if something is "gamey", it is.


Okay, poor word choice on my part. "Know" implies certainty. How about "have a high degree of confidence that"? If the paras drop and the enemy was in fact absent, then they could secure the essential, unoccupied base facilities in short order. If the paras drop and the enemy was present, then the tiny fragment is wiped out, you don't secure the base and you lose a 100 or so troops.




Problem is that you DO "know". It's a game, and you are making use of information your real life counterparts had no way of knowing..., the definition of "gamey".

If you Allies had the option of redeploying their assets before you moved, you would have a point. They don't..., so your explanation is just semantics.



I see your point about turn 1 knowledge (its a little too all-knowing). But what if you postpone the airdrop until turn 2 and on turn 1 you heavily recon the base? So you have earned the information about the base, plus you have given the allied player opportunity to quickly get some troops there to defend the base (PBY air transfer). Is this getting toward more reasonable?

By the way, inappropriately using pre-knowledge is only one example of being gamey. Therefore, it is only one aspect of the definition of gamey. Others involve intentionally taking advantage of the way the game runs. (And these are the ones I find to be more upsetting.) Using 50+ single xAKLs or LBs sailing in front of your CV TF to draw enemy air attacks is an example of this way of being gamey.

< Message edited by Icedawg -- 12/13/2010 8:06:31 PM >

(in reply to mike scholl 1)
Post #: 20
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 8:21:43 PM   
anarchyintheuk

 

Posts: 3917
Joined: 5/5/2004
From: Dallas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

quote:

ORIGINAL: anarchyintheuk

Gamey. To me base control represents inherent civilian governmental organizations and/or military presence sufficient to enjoy the benefits of ownership of a hex. Imo a fragment isn't enough to overcome those forces and obtain approx. 1600 sq. miles of land.


But you're not necessarily worried about the entire hex. In the situation I'm proposing, we're just talking about securing a pier or two and/or a small fighter strip. Example = Vigan - port size 1, airfield size 2. 50-100 guys should do the trick, right?


50-100 is still insufficient to take over the constabulary/angry citizens inherent in a 1/2 base, jmo. In the example you cited the town of Vigan probably had 20k people at the time.

(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 21
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 8:27:01 PM   
Puhis


Posts: 1737
Joined: 11/30/2008
From: Finland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

It just seems ridiculous to me that 10k+ guys landing on an empty beach need 24 hours to secure the location. This use of paras seems to be a simple (and at least semi-plausible) way around this.


Indeed...

I wouldn't care about the hindsight, allied players are using it as much as japanese players. For example every allied player will save all those ships from DEI ASAP...

(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 22
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 10:42:26 PM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
"It just seems ridiculous to me that 10k+ guys landing on an empty beach need 24 hours to secure the location."

That pretty much describes the 1st Marine Division's landing on Guadalcanal. There was no enemy present so they moved in and dug in. They didn't move on to Tassafaronga right away...

To me, I suppose that it depends upon the size of the unit and the size of the fragments involved. If you are talking about splitting a regiment into two or three battallions, then no problem. If you are talking about three to five squads per location, then to me that is a gamey move. Because it is hard to make house rules that cover all possibilities, they tend to be a "one size fits all" device that is more restrictive than necessary.

m10bob... while the d-day drops did end up being scattered to the four winds they were not planned that way. In order to equate Icedawg's seeming proposal to the Normandy landings, Ike would have had to plan to drop a platoon of paratroops at each crossroads within 200 miles of the landing beaches. Would you as a former paratrooper have agreed with such a proposal?

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to Puhis)
Post #: 23
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 11:18:39 PM   
Mike Solli


Posts: 15732
Joined: 10/18/2000
From: the flight deck of the Zuikaku
Status: offline
To me, yes it's gamey, because of the engine. If a house rule permits it, then go for it. Just remember that your opponent will repay you in a few years.

_____________________________


Created by the amazing Dixie

(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 24
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/13/2010 11:33:15 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

Weren't there tons of instances in WWII where commandos went into lightly defended areas to secure important crossroads, ports and airstrips? Maybe 100 or so guys airdropped or landed in small craft under the cover of darkness?

For example, in the Battle of the Bulge, didnt' the Germans utilize a small airborne unit dropped in the intended path of Kampfgroup Peiper? If I recall correctly, these guys operated in small groups changing road signs and creating general chaos in advance of Peiper. In addition, I vaguely remember "Grief" teams also from the Battle of the Bulge. These were small groups of infantry that infiltrated the American lines and secured key objectives in advance of the main force.

This is how I'm envisioning these para fragments I'm talking about in my original post. Using them by themselves is DEFINITELY gamey. Using them in concert with a larger force for the sole purpose of scouting and speeding the advance of that force - seems possible to me.


Operation Stoesser was a failure. Unless you went in with at least a battalion, you were unlikely to be successful. Where your troops would land was highly random and your units would not come down in coherent groups. A local police company had more combat power than a parachute battalion after a drop.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 25
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/14/2010 1:41:09 AM   
Andav

 

Posts: 474
Joined: 5/8/2007
Status: offline

I would vote gamey as well. Drop the entire unit on one location.

Walter

(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 26
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/14/2010 6:06:39 AM   
Capt Hornblower


Posts: 241
Joined: 10/29/2010
From: Massachusetts, USA
Status: offline
My feeling is that if what you're doing is ahistorical (in that nothing like the contemplated action EVER happened in history), then the action violates the spirit of the simulation and is therefore "gamey". If your opponent is human, I'd be wary of employing questionable tactics; if you're playing solo, it's your game-- knock yourself out.

(in reply to Andav)
Post #: 27
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/14/2010 8:07:37 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Former paratrooper..I say not gamey, sounds like a realistic mission to me.

For those who mention the size of the hexes, I ask how accurate the drop was on St Mere Eglise and how long did it take to get there?

The point is, if that was the mission, they "got there".


But Bob, he's talking about small fragments of the same para unit dropping on multiple bases. I totally have no problem with dropping paras, and I have no problem with dropping paras in conjunction with either over-land or amphib assaults. The fact that dropping paras cuts defending Assault Strength by 1/2 is fine with me too, because it does represent the kind of IRL disruption that you are alluding to (on that point I only think it should be some reasonable proportion: dropping a company-sized para unit on a stack of 150,000 defenders to cut their AS for the main overland attack would be gamey only because it is too few paras and the game engine does not distinguish number of paras involved, only that they are dropped).

I only object to small fragments of the same para unit being dropped into multiple bases. I even realize you might not successfully drop the whole para unit (because of air transport vagaries), that's why I say "best effort" to drop the whole unit. I love having paras in the game.



Maybe if a paratroop unit is gonna be fragmented, it should be limited to "how many" fragments.
To be affective I should imagine a fragment no less than battalion strength?
On the other hand, if the owning player wishes to sacrifice said airdrop, that too is a risk.

_____________________________




(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 28
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/14/2010 8:25:31 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Former paratrooper..I say not gamey, sounds like a realistic mission to me.

For those who mention the size of the hexes, I ask how accurate the drop was on St Mere Eglise and how long did it take to get there?

The point is, if that was the mission, they "got there".


But Bob, he's talking about small fragments of the same para unit dropping on multiple bases. I totally have no problem with dropping paras, and I have no problem with dropping paras in conjunction with either over-land or amphib assaults. The fact that dropping paras cuts defending Assault Strength by 1/2 is fine with me too, because it does represent the kind of IRL disruption that you are alluding to (on that point I only think it should be some reasonable proportion: dropping a company-sized para unit on a stack of 150,000 defenders to cut their AS for the main overland attack would be gamey only because it is too few paras and the game engine does not distinguish number of paras involved, only that they are dropped).

I only object to small fragments of the same para unit being dropped into multiple bases. I even realize you might not successfully drop the whole para unit (because of air transport vagaries), that's why I say "best effort" to drop the whole unit. I love having paras in the game.



Maybe if a paratroop unit is gonna be fragmented, it should be limited to "how many" fragments.
To be affective I should imagine a fragment no less than battalion strength?
On the other hand, if the owning player wishes to sacrifice said airdrop, that too is a risk.


If you drop a battalion, the very most you can expect on the target is a company and more likely a reinforced platoon. The smallest force in the game is battalion-sized with a very few reinforced companies, so we can assume the notional garrison of an 'unoccupied' base to be somewhere between a platoon and company of effectives. That means the smallest air or sea landing should be at least a battalion.

_____________________________

Harry Erwin
"For a number to make sense in the game, someone has to calibrate it and program code. There are too many significant numbers that behave non-linearly to expect that. It's just a game. Enjoy it." herwin@btinternet.com

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 29
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/14/2010 10:08:40 AM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Former paratrooper..I say not gamey, sounds like a realistic mission to me.

For those who mention the size of the hexes, I ask how accurate the drop was on St Mere Eglise and how long did it take to get there?

The point is, if that was the mission, they "got there".


But Bob, he's talking about small fragments of the same para unit dropping on multiple bases. I totally have no problem with dropping paras, and I have no problem with dropping paras in conjunction with either over-land or amphib assaults. The fact that dropping paras cuts defending Assault Strength by 1/2 is fine with me too, because it does represent the kind of IRL disruption that you are alluding to (on that point I only think it should be some reasonable proportion: dropping a company-sized para unit on a stack of 150,000 defenders to cut their AS for the main overland attack would be gamey only because it is too few paras and the game engine does not distinguish number of paras involved, only that they are dropped).

I only object to small fragments of the same para unit being dropped into multiple bases. I even realize you might not successfully drop the whole para unit (because of air transport vagaries), that's why I say "best effort" to drop the whole unit. I love having paras in the game.



Maybe if a paratroop unit is gonna be fragmented, it should be limited to "how many" fragments.
To be affective I should imagine a fragment no less than battalion strength?
On the other hand, if the owning player wishes to sacrifice said airdrop, that too is a risk.


If you drop a battalion, the very most you can expect on the target is a company and more likely a reinforced platoon. The smallest force in the game is battalion-sized with a very few reinforced companies, so we can assume the notional garrison of an 'unoccupied' base to be somewhere between a platoon and company of effectives. That means the smallest air or sea landing should be at least a battalion.



I question your comment ref the strength on target. We are looking at 24 hours in a single day turn set-up..

_____________________________




(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Is this a gamey tactic? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.285