Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: 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 >> RE: Is this a gamey tactic? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/14/2010 12:05:52 PM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
If you get badly scattered, it can take days for some of the troops to join up. In any case, you can expect your troops to be scattered over a few square miles and take at least some hours to rendezvous and move out to the target. They certainly would not be able to make a port or airfield ready on the day of landing. Perhaps the next day.

_____________________________

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 #: 31
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/14/2010 12:26:04 PM   
m10bob


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

If you get badly scattered, it can take days for some of the troops to join up. In any case, you can expect your troops to be scattered over a few square miles and take at least some hours to rendezvous and move out to the target. They certainly would not be able to make a port or airfield ready on the day of landing. Perhaps the next day.


I believe you get this idea from the botched night landings over Normandy, or worse, Sicily.
Paratroopers drop together in a "stick", usually squad size in that era and go out all within maybe 8 seconds.
In daylight, with a planned jump, with minimal wind scatter, they should land pretty close, within maybe 200 yards..
Figuring each plane is flying relatively close to the others, the entire force should be able to do so and regroup in a short time.

I refer you to the jump made by "my" unit, the 503rd PIR which jumped onto Corregidor.
Of course, this unit was veteran by the time of this jump, but they were jumping directly onto a hostile environment, not a rural, unoccupied "hex"..

This forum has hundreds of armchair theorists, who know more about history and logistics than I will ever know.
This forum also enjoys the company of many who have actually done the things we discuss in this forum.

_____________________________




(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 32
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/14/2010 1:06:39 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
Market-Garden is another good case in point. The 319th 'Gun Devils' landed near Groesbeek and had their firing batteries up and shooting in two hours.

btw, m10bob, we shot behind 'your' unit a lot; Darby Punch, An Khe, Green Lightning, Dinh Binh.

_____________________________


(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 33
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/14/2010 1:45:08 PM   
herwin

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Market-Garden is another good case in point. The 319th 'Gun Devils' landed near Groesbeek and had their firing batteries up and shooting in two hours.

btw, m10bob, we shot behind 'your' unit a lot; Darby Punch, An Khe, Green Lightning, Dinh Binh.


Crete, though, was a mess.

Over time, most airborne forces got better at it, but this is late 1941-1942. Weather was a potential issue. Did the Japanese use pathfinders? No. And they always dropped at least as a rump 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 JWE)
Post #: 34
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/14/2010 3:27:03 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
Any airborne trooper will tell ya, it's all in the planning and the experience of the delivery system, i.e., the transport squadrons. Without experienced, dedicated transport, it don't matter how good the troops are, they will get scattered to hell and gone. Last thing a trooper wanted to see is the AAC brass plan a drop. In the ETO, our transport .. erm .. was not good. In the PTO, it was much better given the smaller scale of the ops and the dedication of the airmen.

As to gameyness, I personally discourage the operational use of "fragments" in general. The game use of fragments is to allow bits and pieces of a combat unit to be recovered and serve as a rebuild cadre; it is not to allow for ad hoc, erzats platoons running around performing hex denial in a 2000 square mile area. Once an area is conquered, using fragments to wander about knocking on doors, saying "hi, meet the new boss" isn't out of line, but using fragments "operationally" is out of line.

I don't particularly like house rules, because they are arbitrarily limiting. I prefer to use the universal ''no gamey stuff' rule and rely on the common sense of the opposing player when considering it's a 45 nautical mile hex (2025 square nm) we are dealing with.

_____________________________


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 35
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/14/2010 3:40:45 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
recall the old stock tactic of sub landed fragments to take/retake bases after the primary fight has moved on. That was a fun time......more so when the fragments used were pieces of units from minor nationalities (aka 'dutch') would show up weeks later landing on PI bases in order to destroy resources through simple occupation.



_____________________________


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 36
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/14/2010 3:45:10 PM   
TheLoneGunman_MatrixForum


Posts: 312
Joined: 1/12/2010
Status: offline
In the end, I think you're trying to justify using Para Fragments on multiple bases because you're upset at an engine limitation to naval invasions.

That doesn't make it NOT gamey.

Let's break it down a little better:

A naval invasion that lands on an unoccupied beach needs to:

A. Unload troops, equipment, and supplies.
B. Secure and occupy the area.
C. Set up a base of operations.
D. Get the unit ready for the next mission.

This can take 2-3 days time.

A naval invasion landing on an area already secured via paradrop doesn't need to do all of this, so it vastly speeds up the process.

What you need to ask yourself is if 10 guys jumping out of an airplane and putting a flag in the ground would be able to speed up a naval invasion realistically or would you need an entire unit to get that effect?

When you know the answer to that question, you will know whether or not it is gamey.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 37
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/14/2010 3:52:24 PM   
John Lansford

 

Posts: 2662
Joined: 4/29/2002
Status: offline
Herwin,

IIRC the USArmy dropped a reinforced regiment onto Corregidor late in the war, and most of the men landed on target.  Of course, they also dropped from a dangerously low altitude and were reinforced from the sea, but they did do it.
Post #: 38
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/14/2010 3:59:51 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 26007
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

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.


This is the kind of thing I am thinking (although some para units in the game are only companies). I took the OP's question to be about fragments that are only a small percentage of a unit, with the original unit being either brigade/battalion/company. I am certainly OK with a best effort to drop the whole unit, because air transport is modeled to be unpredictable and (also with a realistic feel) is often in short supply.

The other point that the OP did not ask but that is relevant for many para drops in the game is the reduction in defender's Assault Strength caused by the para drop. The game engine doesn't seem to care about relative force sizes, so the players have to think about it to be realistic. So, if there are 150,000 defenders in a hex, and 150,000 attackers, the attacker can drop just a couple of para squads and that will cause the defenders AS to be cut in half. With the ground-based (or amphib) attackers conducting a shock attack at the same time, that would be gamey. On the other hand, if there is some kind of realistic proportion then it makes perfect sense.

Bob, I would like to hear your opinion about some kind of rule of thumb about what is a reasonable proportion for coordinated attacks. I don't mean a hard house rule, I mean advice for my own judgement as I move through my own PBM's (to enforce a sense of realism on myself). To be clear, I mean you are attacking and you have either land forces already in the hex or an amphib forces landing, and they will attack the same turn as the para drop. How large should the para drop be (compared to the defenders) to justify the 50% reduction in the defenders Assault Strength?

PS: My apologies to the original poster for going a little off track. I hope it's still relevant enough for your purposes.

< Message edited by witpqs -- 12/14/2010 4:00:22 PM >

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 39
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/14/2010 4:55:55 PM   
Icedawg


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

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

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.


This is the kind of thing I am thinking (although some para units in the game are only companies). I took the OP's question to be about fragments that are only a small percentage of a unit, with the original unit being either brigade/battalion/company. I am certainly OK with a best effort to drop the whole unit, because air transport is modeled to be unpredictable and (also with a realistic feel) is often in short supply.

The other point that the OP did not ask but that is relevant for many para drops in the game is the reduction in defender's Assault Strength caused by the para drop. The game engine doesn't seem to care about relative force sizes, so the players have to think about it to be realistic. So, if there are 150,000 defenders in a hex, and 150,000 attackers, the attacker can drop just a couple of para squads and that will cause the defenders AS to be cut in half. With the ground-based (or amphib) attackers conducting a shock attack at the same time, that would be gamey. On the other hand, if there is some kind of realistic proportion then it makes perfect sense.

Bob, I would like to hear your opinion about some kind of rule of thumb about what is a reasonable proportion for coordinated attacks. I don't mean a hard house rule, I mean advice for my own judgement as I move through my own PBM's (to enforce a sense of realism on myself). To be clear, I mean you are attacking and you have either land forces already in the hex or an amphib forces landing, and they will attack the same turn as the para drop. How large should the para drop be (compared to the defenders) to justify the 50% reduction in the defenders Assault Strength?

PS: My apologies to the original poster for going a little off track. I hope it's still relevant enough for your purposes.


I think I did not adequately explain myself when I used the phrase "relatively small fragments" in my original post. I am not talking about very small fragments ie: 2-3 Para squads. I'm talking about around 10 para squads plus the associated support troops. So, each of my airdrops will have about 25+ transport aircraft - this will probably result in about 10 or so combat squads and 10-15 support squads for a grand total of about 100 combat troops and 200-250 troops in all.

If I recall, this was about the size of some of the smaller Japanese airborne operations in the war. (I believe I read somewhere that in the taking of an airfield in Timor, they used around 300 troops in all.)

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 40
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/14/2010 5:04:50 PM   
herwin

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Herwin,

IIRC the USArmy dropped a reinforced regiment onto Corregidor late in the war, and most of the men landed on target.  Of course, they also dropped from a dangerously low altitude and were reinforced from the sea, but they did do it.


1945 at a time and place of our choice. 3rd combat drop of the regiment. Doctrine well-understood and well-trained troops/transports. Not 1941/42 with a tight timeline to meet and with inexperienced troops and transports.

_____________________________

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 John Lansford)
Post #: 41
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/14/2010 5:05:35 PM   
Mynok


Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

You can't control what part of the unit will get transported and dropped, even if you know it won't be all of it.

_____________________________

"Measure civilization by the ability of citizens to mock government with impunity" -- Unknown

(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 42
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/14/2010 5:23:22 PM   
Icedawg


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

ORIGINAL: Mynok


You can't control what part of the unit will get transported and dropped, even if you know it won't be all of it.


I realize you can't control which specific elements are transported. However, in my past experience, if you start with the whole 1st or 3rd Yokosuka SNLF and air transport them with the 25 Tinas in Kagi, you'll get about this ratio.

(in reply to Mynok)
Post #: 43
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/14/2010 6:25:53 PM   
Chickenboy


Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: John Lansford

Herwin,

IIRC the USArmy dropped a reinforced regiment onto Corregidor late in the war, and most of the men landed on target.  Of course, they also dropped from a dangerously low altitude and were reinforced from the sea, but they did do it.


1945 at a time and place of our choice. 3rd combat drop of the regiment. Doctrine well-understood and well-trained troops/transports. Not 1941/42 with a tight timeline to meet and with inexperienced troops and transports.

The PIR drop on Corregidor was successful from a military perspective, but a great number were blown off course. They had LC offshore picking guys out of the sea too. Only through the 'overkill' for the mission were they successful in dislodging the IJ from the mile-long barracks region.

_____________________________


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 44
RE: Is this a gamey tactic? - 12/14/2010 6:33:44 PM   
m10bob


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

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.


This is the kind of thing I am thinking (although some para units in the game are only companies). I took the OP's question to be about fragments that are only a small percentage of a unit, with the original unit being either brigade/battalion/company. I am certainly OK with a best effort to drop the whole unit, because air transport is modeled to be unpredictable and (also with a realistic feel) is often in short supply.

The other point that the OP did not ask but that is relevant for many para drops in the game is the reduction in defender's Assault Strength caused by the para drop. The game engine doesn't seem to care about relative force sizes, so the players have to think about it to be realistic. So, if there are 150,000 defenders in a hex, and 150,000 attackers, the attacker can drop just a couple of para squads and that will cause the defenders AS to be cut in half. With the ground-based (or amphib) attackers conducting a shock attack at the same time, that would be gamey. On the other hand, if there is some kind of realistic proportion then it makes perfect sense.

Bob, I would like to hear your opinion about some kind of rule of thumb about what is a reasonable proportion for coordinated attacks. I don't mean a hard house rule, I mean advice for my own judgement as I move through my own PBM's (to enforce a sense of realism on myself). To be clear, I mean you are attacking and you have either land forces already in the hex or an amphib forces landing, and they will attack the same turn as the para drop. How large should the para drop be (compared to the defenders) to justify the 50% reduction in the defenders Assault Strength?

PS: My apologies to the original poster for going a little off track. I hope it's still relevant enough for your purposes.


I think I did not adequately explain myself when I used the phrase "relatively small fragments" in my original post. I am not talking about very small fragments ie: 2-3 Para squads. I'm talking about around 10 para squads plus the associated support troops. So, each of my airdrops will have about 25+ transport aircraft - this will probably result in about 10 or so combat squads and 10-15 support squads for a grand total of about 100 combat troops and 200-250 troops in all.

If I recall, this was about the size of some of the smaller Japanese airborne operations in the war. (I believe I read somewhere that in the taking of an airfield in Timor, they used around 300 troops in all.)



Just my opinion compadre, but the smallest sized airborne unit I have found in game is Bn strength, which seems fine.
I wonder if the Rgt's can be broken down, (which would be a surefire cure for this whole thread)?

I saw where 2 companies of the 503rd operated on a 2 company mission but it was an amphib operation, not a drop.

I believe Bn strength should be the limitation, nothing smaller.

_____________________________




(in reply to Icedawg)
Post #: 45
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Is this a gamey tactic? 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

0.254