Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Limited Stacking

 
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 >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Limited Stacking Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Limited Stacking - 9/20/2011 8:11:11 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
Ok, another reason for going with AB's Extended Map for Babes is there is a neat and nifty set of magic map data that allows the different hex types to be defined in terms of stacking limits. Lots of way cool stuff, with way cool multipliers, that sets hex stacking limits anywhere from 300,000 'combat' troops, for a clear hex, to 20,000 in jungle-rough.

Only works with AB's Extended Map. Have lots of data. Looks sweet. Will offer as an alternative map data set on the Babes site.

@ JeffK, if you download the new map data set, and run Nik's Guad Scen, it should work ok, since Nik's map is truncated. This should be a good test for you. Very interested as to what you think.

_____________________________

Post #: 1
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/21/2011 9:23:35 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
I like it.

_____________________________

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 #: 2
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/21/2011 6:05:37 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
There’s a base stack limit for each hex type; lots of troops allowed in an Urban hex, fewer in Clear, fewer still in Forest and Desert, all the way down to Swamp, Sand Desert, Rough Jungle, and Tropical Mountain. Then there’s modifiers; hey, there’s always modifiers, right?

The whole idea of stacking limits is to reduce the number of troops in a hex that can be adequately supplied in that type of terrain. So your basic supply routes in and through the hex will generally accommodate more troops.

There are benefit multipliers for the presence of rivers (Small, Large, Navigable); roads (Track, Secondary, Main); railways (Minor, Major). So an Urban hex with a main road and a major railway can support quite a few troops. 90 miles away, in raw Jungle-Rough terrain, it is significantly different. There’s 48 elements in the matrix.

No more Mega-Stacks. Operations need to be conducted along carefully chosen routes. Enemy bases, with their supply dumps, will be a harder nut to crack if attacking from the ‘blue’. Supply build-up and supply lines become a paramount consideration when planning and conducting operations.
Thing is that stacking limits don’t really limit stacking; one can stack all they want. What the limits do is define how many troops can be adequately supplied there, and imposes supply penalties for overages. One might be willing to accept an increased rate of supply consumption, if they have large local stockpiles. Likewise, one might be willing to accept the disruption and fatigue hits, from lack of adequate supply, in the interest of operational imperatives. Just think Bataan.

Anyway, should be fun for grogs. Only works with AB’s Extended Map. Short Scens, like Nik’s Guad 004 will work just fine because it just picks out a window; and the window doesn’t include any of the Andrew/Babes map changes, so just grab the Stack Limit data file from the website and try it out. If you are doing a campaign game, you will need to capture the Extended Map before you use the Stack Limit data file.


_____________________________


(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 3
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/21/2011 6:22:16 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline
Does one have to use a third party program like WitPTracker to "see" the stack limit?



_____________________________


(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 4
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/21/2011 6:50:34 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25334
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

There’s 48 elements in the matrix.


Geez, Johnny, that's more dimensions than String Theory!

(I know you said 'elements' not 'dimensions', but misquoting a little allows a great quip.)

quote:


No more Mega-Stacks. Operations need to be conducted along carefully chosen routes. Enemy bases, with their supply dumps, will be a harder nut to crack if attacking from the ‘blue’. Supply build-up and supply lines become a paramount consideration when planning and conducting operations.
Thing is that stacking limits don’t really limit stacking; one can stack all they want. What the limits do is define how many troops can be adequately supplied there, and imposes supply penalties for overages. One might be willing to accept an increased rate of supply consumption, if they have large local stockpiles. Likewise, one might be willing to accept the disruption and fatigue hits, from lack of adequate supply, in the interest of operational imperatives. Just think Bataan.


Sounds well done - I think I'll have to troll for an Imperial opponent when it all gets the green flag.

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 5
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/21/2011 8:28:08 PM   
Alfred

 

Posts: 6541
Joined: 9/28/2006
Status: offline
JWE,

In the OP, you placed "'combat" within quotation marks. Was that meant to exclude the support troops. Seems somewhat counter intuitive because the stock island stacking limits include both combat and non-combat troops in the mix. Including all the boots in the limit further reduces the size of the spear point, just like real life.

Overall it sounds very good. It strikes me as being the single most significant improvement made to the land combat engine and would reduce by at least 75% the regular complaints made about land combat (albeit probably introduce another 25% of complaints that continental bases would now be too hard to capture).

I do hope that once play experience shows no ill effects, this change is ported over to the stock map. Based on what Andrew Brown has previously said, a port over doesn't seem to be an insurmountable task.

Alfred

(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 6
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/22/2011 2:31:40 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6373
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE

Ok, another reason for going with AB's Extended Map for Babes is there is a neat and nifty set of magic map data that allows the different hex types to be defined in terms of stacking limits. Lots of way cool stuff, with way cool multipliers, that sets hex stacking limits anywhere from 300,000 'combat' troops, for a clear hex, to 20,000 in jungle-rough.

Only works with AB's Extended Map. Have lots of data. Looks sweet. Will offer as an alternative map data set on the Babes site.

@ JeffK, if you download the new map data set, and run Nik's Guad Scen, it should work ok, since Nik's map is truncated. This should be a good test for you. Very interested as to what you think.

OK, do I need to be patched up??


_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 7
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/22/2011 3:34:44 AM   
ny59giants


Posts: 9809
Joined: 1/10/2005
Status: offline
Great news!! The elimination or reduction in the use of "Death Star" ground stacks is great news.

_____________________________


(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 8
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/22/2011 4:49:07 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 4918
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
So far there is only a map data file, with the stacking limits inbuilt, for the map I made which is meant to be compatible with the original Da Big Babes map. I need to create one for my extended map, and I will do so as soon as time permits (real life is intervening for now...)

Andrew

(in reply to ny59giants)
Post #: 9
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/22/2011 5:22:02 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6373
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
Rather than Bataan, I see this as putting up the historical barrier between Burma and India.
Currently the penalty is time, IMHO it takes far too long to move between Imphal & Mandalay, but you can move an LCU Deathstar through the jungle and smash your way through.

If this works as planned, you can move smaller forces through the jungles, but have to co-ordinated a number of "columns" to move efficiently OR spend masses of supplies to move an LCU Deathstar through and keep supplied at the other end.

I'm not sure if JWE has done this bit, does ownership of a base within the hex help or are both sides handled evenly??

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 10
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/22/2011 10:22:54 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6373
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
because I'm a card carrying Luddite it took a while to get it all in place, I need a 10 year old to teach me a bit more.

It looks good, in the Gcanal scenario I compared Brisbane and Noumea, Brissy had about twice the force but well under its cap and needed about 4500 supply .
Noumea had about 10% over its cap and wanted over 8000 supply  (Both had minimal aircraft)

There wasnt a rise in disruption or fatigue, maybe in a longer movement and battle it would show.

I'm about the start a DBBScen28 game so I'll see how it goes.

PS   I have a few questions on the ratings for bases, PH only allows 20k??  WAD with the right numbers or affected by the 7/12 attack damaging infrastructure.



_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 11
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/22/2011 11:37:07 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 4918
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
PS   I have a few questions on the ratings for bases, PH only allows 20k??  WAD with the right numbers or affected by the 7/12 attack damaging infrastructure.


I don't have a copy of the data with me at present, so I can't check, but this looks to show a weakness in the formulas I used to derive the stacking values. Infrastructure, such as roads and railways, boosts the allowed value, but single hex islands, such as Oahu, that were "developed" with good roads, do not get roads in the map data, and therefore do not get appropriate stacking limit bonuses (using my current formula).

There are a couple of possible approaches to fix that up:

1) Add "stub" roads and/or railways to the map data for "developed" single hex islands. This would be scenario-independent, but is a bit of a kludge. Adding such data should not affect gameplay.

2) Take account of bases when determining a stacking limit value. This would be read from the scenario data, and so would be scenario-specific. Building up bases would not change the stacking limits, which is a shortcoming, but not a fatal one, I think.

3) Manually adjust some values for hexes such as PH. Again this is sort of scenario-specific.

Thinking about how to approach this...

Andrew



< Message edited by Andrew Brown -- 9/23/2011 2:13:25 AM >

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 12
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 1:51:56 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6373
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
Andrew,

I think for bases its almost a case by case situation, can it be part of the "location data" (lots of work) or does it have to be a pwhex based solution(lots more work)

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 13
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 2:07:55 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 14976
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline
Just so everyone is aware the AI will not cope with this change wiithout a total re write it took a long time to get the AI atoll garrisons ok and no work at all has been done to ensure that the AI will adjust to this.

So the AI will either have to be totally exepmt from this new stacking, someone will need to re wrtite and test the AI scripts or this mod is PBEM only (which is fine)

I am fine with the change as it applies to mods and as optional chrome its fantastic but this should not be applied to the core game via an exe change as it will screw up the v AI games.



(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 14
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 8:30:12 AM   
herwin

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
PS   I have a few questions on the ratings for bases, PH only allows 20k??  WAD with the right numbers or affected by the 7/12 attack damaging infrastructure.


I don't have a copy of the data with me at present, so I can't check, but this looks to show a weakness in the formulas I used to derive the stacking values. Infrastructure, such as roads and railways, boosts the allowed value, but single hex islands, such as Oahu, that were "developed" with good roads, do not get roads in the map data, and therefore do not get appropriate stacking limit bonuses (using my current formula).

There are a couple of possible approaches to fix that up:

1) Add "stub" roads and/or railways to the map data for "developed" single hex islands. This would be scenario-independent, but is a bit of a kludge. Adding such data should not affect gameplay.

2) Take account of bases when determining a stacking limit value. This would be read from the scenario data, and so would be scenario-specific. Building up bases would not change the stacking limits, which is a shortcoming, but not a fatal one, I think.

3) Manually adjust some values for hexes such as PH. Again this is sort of scenario-specific.

Thinking about how to approach this...

Andrew




Stubs would probably work best.


_____________________________

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 Andrew Brown)
Post #: 15
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 8:32:38 AM   
herwin

 

Posts: 6059
Joined: 5/28/2004
From: Sunderland, UK
Status: offline
Does this help with the problem in Burma where it seems the Allied player can replicate Slim's dry season 1944-45 offensive during the monsoon season of 1942? I assume it also helps in China.

_____________________________

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 herwin)
Post #: 16
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 9:34:45 AM   
Smeulders

 

Posts: 1879
Joined: 8/9/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Does this help with the problem in Burma where it seems the Allied player can replicate Slim's dry season 1944-45 offensive during the monsoon season of 1942? I assume it also helps in China.


These complaints keep popping up, but has anyone actually ever managed to do a large Burma invasion after the introduction of supply movement caps ? All the examples I know from the AAR forum are old games, started before the supply movement restrictions were patched in.

_____________________________

The AE-Wiki, help fill it out

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 17
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 9:45:35 AM   
herwin

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders


quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Does this help with the problem in Burma where it seems the Allied player can replicate Slim's dry season 1944-45 offensive during the monsoon season of 1942? I assume it also helps in China.


These complaints keep popping up, but has anyone actually ever managed to do a large Burma invasion after the introduction of supply movement caps ? All the examples I know from the AAR forum are old games, started before the supply movement restrictions were patched in.


The last upgrade of the beta for us was 14 August 2011.

_____________________________

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 Smeulders)
Post #: 18
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 1:36:34 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK
I think for bases its almost a case by case situation, can it be part of the "location data" (lots of work) or does it have to be a pwhex based solution(lots more work)

Have a good start on fixing up the file for the extended map areas. Should be finished today. Hopefully it will be much like Andrew's, but should be good enough for govt work till AB's official file comes out. Andrew and I are coordinating as best we can.

Also think bases are best tweaked on a case by case. Stubs will work, and perhaps are necessary, to get the multipliers set up right, but certain bases will nevertheless need the base limits (BL) set manually. Lots of work, but still.

This would also give an opportunity to address AndyMac's AI concerns. Do islands also on a case by case, at least the small ones (atolls). Believe the medium and large islands will mostly fall into the same range as what they have currently. AB has a list of small islands, so it shouldn't be that hard.

Anyway, still very much a work in process. Appreciate the comments on details. Would like to hear how this functions within the game mechanics.

_____________________________


(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 19
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 1:37:55 PM   
beppi

 

Posts: 382
Joined: 3/11/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
Generic stacking limits for every hex sound quite interesting but wouldn't the current game engine create further problems resulting out of that limits. If the limits are quite low for my point of view that could lead to various problems during the combat. If you have a 30k limit in a rough jungle hex, and a i put there 30k troops let them stay 3 months to build the open forts to lvl 4 or 5. How would it be possible to win a fight there with x3 modifiers and the forts. Even without the forts it would be close to impossible force a retreat there. Next problems would be bases with to low stacking limits. Already close to impossible to fight bases with lvl 9 forts in difficult terrain and if the limits are to low -> defender stacks to the limit, attacker has a problem. Last "problem" i would see are errors during and movement problems during gameplay. I have a two or three hexes with a 30k limit next to each other and now i lose a fight and my units are forced to retreat in a lower limit hex. The supply usage could jump to astronomical levels and you have no chance to do anything as your units need a few turns to move out of the hex. Or if a force a stack of units to retreat into an other stack, which now results in a massive overstack penalty. You could burn massive amounts of supply only in one turn, technically draining an entire area of all supply. Other problem would be movement of troops. What happens if i move some moving units to an other hex and they pass an already occupied hex ?

For me stacking limits on isolated islands work very well. You cannot drain supply from other hexes, you cannot force units to retreat to other hexes with different stacking limits and for the attacker, the most important thing is that you can quite easily can kill off all supply just by isolating the island.

Sounds nice and would be a quite interesting for using during a campaign. I currently experience some problems with both sides have 6000+ AV in two or three groups circling each other, one side trying to block as much as possible and the other side trying to cut the enemy off. But if both sides are careful that is almost impossible, and direct combat in non open hex is close to impossible too between such large stacks.

< Message edited by beppi -- 9/23/2011 1:41:55 PM >

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 20
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 3:19:13 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
JWE,
In the OP, you placed "'combat" within quotation marks. Was that meant to exclude the support troops. Seems somewhat counter intuitive because the stock island stacking limits include both combat and non-combat troops in the mix. Including all the boots in the limit further reduces the size of the spear point, just like real life.
Alfred

"Combat" is in quotes to preempt arguments as how many IRL troops could fit into a hex IRL.

In-game, a 10 division stack would be between 150,000 and 220,000 "troops" (infantry and other). Add in arty, and tanks, and engineers, HQs, and BFs, and bears, oh my! and a 10 division stack gets between 200,000 and 275,000 "troops". Now that is a very large formal Army, by anyone's standards. US 1st and 3rd Armys, at similar strengths averaged 812,000 each. But game does not count every man and every unit, only those reasonably related to game "combat" activities. So 2/3 to 3/4 of IRL "troops" are not represented in-game. So a hex that is limited to 300,000 "game" troops might be conceptually understood to allow 900,000 to 1,200,000 IRL troops.


_____________________________


(in reply to Alfred)
Post #: 21
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 3:24:44 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7916
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: JWE


quote:

ORIGINAL: Alfred
JWE,
In the OP, you placed "'combat" within quotation marks. Was that meant to exclude the support troops. Seems somewhat counter intuitive because the stock island stacking limits include both combat and non-combat troops in the mix. Including all the boots in the limit further reduces the size of the spear point, just like real life.
Alfred

"Combat" is in quotes to preempt arguments as how many IRL troops could fit into a hex IRL.

In-game, a 10 division stack would be between 150,000 and 220,000 "troops" (infantry and other). Add in arty, and tanks, and engineers, HQs, and BFs, and bears, oh my! and a 10 division stack gets between 200,000 and 275,000 "troops". Now that is a very large formal Army, by anyone's standards. US 1st and 3rd Armys, at similar strengths averaged 812,000 each. But game does not count every man and every unit, only those reasonably related to game "combat" activities. So 2/3 to 3/4 of IRL "troops" are not represented in-game. So a hex that is limited to 300,000 "game" troops might be conceptually understood to allow 900,000 to 1,200,000 IRL troops.



So the game essentially doesn't count cooks, signals, hospital, mechanic, etc troops...only those that actually fight on the lines. So basically each combat 'troop' has 3-4 support guys to keep him in fighting condition.

When you put it that way, its easy to see how some battles could involved millions of troops for each side, but only a fraction of them actually did the fighting. The rest were behind the lines getting beans, bullets and gas to the ones who were fighting.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to JWE)
Post #: 22
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 4:27:17 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25334
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Does this help with the problem in Burma where it seems the Allied player can replicate Slim's dry season 1944-45 offensive during the monsoon season of 1942? I assume it also helps in China.


These complaints keep popping up, but has anyone actually ever managed to do a large Burma invasion after the introduction of supply movement caps ? All the examples I know from the AAR forum are old games, started before the supply movement restrictions were patched in.


The last upgrade of the beta for us was 14 August 2011.


Smeulders is correct, those large scale invasions have not been demonstrated. It will be interesting to see what you do with yours, but in AE most IJ players have been able to cut off those early Allied offensives out of India by invading India. Andy Mac's AAR is recommended for a look at supply issues of large scale Allied offensives in Burma.

And of course, these modifications should have a major effect on things there too.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 23
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 4:41:54 PM   
JWE

 

Posts: 6580
Joined: 7/19/2005
Status: offline
Indeed. The PTO is rather harder to parse, but in general, on Jan 1, 1943, Army Ground Forces (AGF) comprised 1,940,000 troops, Army Air Forces (AAF) comprised 730,000 troops, Army Service Forces (ASF) comprised 2,730,000 troops. On Jan 1, 1944, Army Ground Forces comprised 2,550,000 troops, Army Air Forces comprised 1,170,000 troops, Army Service Forces comprised 3,865,000 troops.

Actual breakdown of divisional vs non-divisional personnel in Army Ground Forces was about 45:55, so on Jan 1, 1943, only 875,000 troops were in divisions (out of 1.94 million in AGF and 5.4 million total USA)). On Jan 1, 1944, only 1,150,000 troops were in divisions (out of 2.55 million in AGF and 7.6 million total USA).

In-game, there are no ASF units. Only about 25% of AAF personnel are represented. Only about 35% of AGF non-divisional personnel are represented. So on Jan 1, 1943, the game is short about 700,000 AGF non-divisional personnel, about 500,000 AAF personnel, and 2,730,000 ASF personnel. That's 3,900,000 shortfall out of 5,400,000. These are US Army totals and, of course, the PTO numbers were much smaller. However, the relative percentage scales should be similar.

The whole point is that IRL troop density might be interesting on an intellectual level, but it has no intrinsic relevance to "game" troop densities. One needs to scale IRL densities down by a factor of 3 or 4 to get to 'game" densities.

[ed] numbers from Greenfield, Palmer, and Wiley, "The Organization of Ground Combat Troops", US Army CMH.

< Message edited by JWE -- 9/23/2011 4:45:28 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to Shark7)
Post #: 24
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 4:52:37 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Does this help with the problem in Burma where it seems the Allied player can replicate Slim's dry season 1944-45 offensive during the monsoon season of 1942? I assume it also helps in China.


These complaints keep popping up, but has anyone actually ever managed to do a large Burma invasion after the introduction of supply movement caps ? All the examples I know from the AAR forum are old games, started before the supply movement restrictions were patched in.


The last upgrade of the beta for us was 14 August 2011.


Smeulders is correct, those large scale invasions have not been demonstrated. It will be interesting to see what you do with yours, but in AE most IJ players have been able to cut off those early Allied offensives out of India by invading India. Andy Mac's AAR is recommended for a look at supply issues of large scale Allied offensives in Burma.

And of course, these modifications should have a major effect on things there too.



I have heard of them.....but not done it myself. However I have easily created a Maginot Line in mid Burma well after the fall of Rangoon. There is no serious supply issue from India into North Burma despite the absence of full on supply lines

_____________________________


(in reply to witpqs)
Post #: 25
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 5:02:08 PM   
herwin

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Does this help with the problem in Burma where it seems the Allied player can replicate Slim's dry season 1944-45 offensive during the monsoon season of 1942? I assume it also helps in China.


These complaints keep popping up, but has anyone actually ever managed to do a large Burma invasion after the introduction of supply movement caps ? All the examples I know from the AAR forum are old games, started before the supply movement restrictions were patched in.


The last upgrade of the beta for us was 14 August 2011.


Smeulders is correct, those large scale invasions have not been demonstrated. It will be interesting to see what you do with yours, but in AE most IJ players have been able to cut off those early Allied offensives out of India by invading India. Andy Mac's AAR is recommended for a look at supply issues of large scale Allied offensives in Burma.

And of course, these modifications should have a major effect on things there too.


If so, what kept Japan from invading India in reality? The 1944 offensive died due to lack of supply.

_____________________________

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 witpqs)
Post #: 26
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 5:17:37 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25334
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Does this help with the problem in Burma where it seems the Allied player can replicate Slim's dry season 1944-45 offensive during the monsoon season of 1942? I assume it also helps in China.


These complaints keep popping up, but has anyone actually ever managed to do a large Burma invasion after the introduction of supply movement caps ? All the examples I know from the AAR forum are old games, started before the supply movement restrictions were patched in.


The last upgrade of the beta for us was 14 August 2011.


Smeulders is correct, those large scale invasions have not been demonstrated. It will be interesting to see what you do with yours, but in AE most IJ players have been able to cut off those early Allied offensives out of India by invading India. Andy Mac's AAR is recommended for a look at supply issues of large scale Allied offensives in Burma.

And of course, these modifications should have a major effect on things there too.



I have heard of them.....but not done it myself. However I have easily created a Maginot Line in mid Burma well after the fall of Rangoon. There is no serious supply issue from India into North Burma despite the absence of full on supply lines


Sounds like you are talking about before the early patches. There certainly are issues after that.

(in reply to Nikademus)
Post #: 27
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 5:22:15 PM   
witpqs


Posts: 25334
Joined: 10/4/2004
From: Argleton
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Does this help with the problem in Burma where it seems the Allied player can replicate Slim's dry season 1944-45 offensive during the monsoon season of 1942? I assume it also helps in China.


These complaints keep popping up, but has anyone actually ever managed to do a large Burma invasion after the introduction of supply movement caps ? All the examples I know from the AAR forum are old games, started before the supply movement restrictions were patched in.


The last upgrade of the beta for us was 14 August 2011.


Smeulders is correct, those large scale invasions have not been demonstrated. It will be interesting to see what you do with yours, but in AE most IJ players have been able to cut off those early Allied offensives out of India by invading India. Andy Mac's AAR is recommended for a look at supply issues of large scale Allied offensives in Burma.

And of course, these modifications should have a major effect on things there too.


If so, what kept Japan from invading India in reality? The 1944 offensive died due to lack of supply.


Your question doesn't make sense - I am talking about what has been observed in AE, which obviously did not affect historical facts that occurred ~70 years ago. Besides, I'm sure you aren't suggesting that history had to go that way, that the Allies were powerless to do things differently in and around Burma.

To both Nik and Harry, I'm going to beg off of further Burma supply discussion in this thread because too far afield is a hijack. The point is that the changes in this mod should have further impact on the situation in Burma. Let's see what it brings.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 28
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 6:58:20 PM   
Shark7


Posts: 7916
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

quote:

ORIGINAL: herwin

Does this help with the problem in Burma where it seems the Allied player can replicate Slim's dry season 1944-45 offensive during the monsoon season of 1942? I assume it also helps in China.


These complaints keep popping up, but has anyone actually ever managed to do a large Burma invasion after the introduction of supply movement caps ? All the examples I know from the AAR forum are old games, started before the supply movement restrictions were patched in.


The last upgrade of the beta for us was 14 August 2011.


Smeulders is correct, those large scale invasions have not been demonstrated. It will be interesting to see what you do with yours, but in AE most IJ players have been able to cut off those early Allied offensives out of India by invading India. Andy Mac's AAR is recommended for a look at supply issues of large scale Allied offensives in Burma.

And of course, these modifications should have a major effect on things there too.


If so, what kept Japan from invading India in reality? The 1944 offensive died due to lack of supply.


I'm having trouble keeping my Singapore attack force supplied in 1942 with the latest patch (q3 I think). So yeah, an early '42 invasion of India sure seems like a non-starter given my current game's results.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 29
RE: Limited Stacking - 9/23/2011 8:34:48 PM   
el cid again

 

Posts: 16901
Joined: 10/10/2005
Status: offline
quote:

If so, what kept Japan from invading India in reality? The 1944 offensive died due to lack of supply.


It was not contemplated. By 1944 Japan could not have attempted it by sea. In 1942 it probably could not have been stopped -
but only the Bengal Field Force of the INA would have been available in support. India is a sleeper in history - only since the 1980s
have serious historians been looking at it (see Total War, Calvocorricci et al and The Encyclopedia of Revolutions). Japan didn't
have the kind of pre war plan often assumed - and was somewhat surprised how well the first campaigns came off. This is why "what
to do next" became a debate - there was no master plan to stick to. The INA might really have mattered - it is why Germany sent
Chandra Bose in mid war - but Japan was never entirely supportive of it (although at least one Japanese from the Nakano School
was - and he formed the first INA in 1942 from prisoners in Malaya). The British were dreadfully afraid of the impact and considered it
treason - but attempts to try INA soldiers as traitors ("the Red Fort Trials") rendered India ungovernable and led to independence.
Not that this stuff is easy to represent in the game. India was not really going to be an Axis power, and at best would simply stop
being a provider of CW troops, supplies and bases - unless Japan was stupid (which happened from time to time) - in which case India
might become genuinely Allied. Had the British promised independence, India would have been far more Allied than it was: the Japanese
had no monopoly on being stupid.

The 1944 offensive was of course a logistical nightmare. But the bigger problem is that by 1944 the Allied position in NE India is
vastly too strong for the forces available to succeed. The Bengal and Assam RR has been upgraded in capacity - and a major Bhramaputra
river barrier effectively removed from the logistical trail. Allied units in numbers exist with modern weapons - and they hold the high
ground when the Japanese (and INA) comes out of the trail system. An amphibious invasion - as occurs in many games - is much more
feasible because the Allies do not know where to concentrate their defense? There are literally thousands of miles of potential landing sites -
and areas much less defensible to attack which also have far less defending them. Once captured, these areas also tend to be some semi-supply independent - India is productive in many respects. The game is quite good in this respect - and history did not have to involve the choices it did.

Monsoon effects - and other seasonal effects - probably are something that can be better modeled. Changing game files is less likely to work than changing code or changing pwhexe.dat files would - since Monsoon is a seasonal thing - not "once you get it, you keep it" sort of thing. But PLAYERS are always free NOT to try an offensive in the wrong season - if they want to play "fairly" and "historically" - always subjective concepts.

(in reply to herwin)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Scenario Design and Modding >> Limited Stacking 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

0.340