Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade

 
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 >> Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/1/2016 1:35:41 AM   
scout1


Posts: 2750
Joined: 8/24/2004
From: South Bend, In
Status: offline
There are a number of options available for new game (aircraft upgrade path, US damage control, US torpedo reliability, etc .......)

Wondering whether it would be possible to add one covering Allied God like INTEL ...... Would be nice to actually have the Allied player "wonder" where the KB was ... Granted is not historical, but neither are some of the other options ... Might as well send a copy of my operational orders to Nimitz
Post #: 1
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/1/2016 2:16:28 AM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

There are a number of options available for new game (aircraft upgrade path, US damage control, US torpedo reliability, etc .......)

Wondering whether it would be possible to add one covering Allied God like INTEL ...... Would be nice to actually have the Allied player "wonder" where the KB was ... Granted is not historical, but neither are some of the other options ... Might as well send a copy of my operational orders to Nimitz


You need to play the Allies and see that your concerns are overblown. The SigInt in the game is in fact a mere shadow of what was really available to the operating forces.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to scout1)
Post #: 2
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/1/2016 2:22:23 AM   
btd64


Posts: 7324
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: online
+ONE

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 3
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/1/2016 3:09:51 AM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline
+Another ONE

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 4
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/1/2016 5:07:55 AM   
crsutton


Posts: 9590
Joined: 12/6/2002
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: scout1

There are a number of options available for new game (aircraft upgrade path, US damage control, US torpedo reliability, etc .......)

Wondering whether it would be possible to add one covering Allied God like INTEL ...... Would be nice to actually have the Allied player "wonder" where the KB was ... Granted is not historical, but neither are some of the other options ... Might as well send a copy of my operational orders to Nimitz



It is a very lucky player that gets intel on the location of a Japanese carrier more than two or three times during the whole war.

_____________________________

I am the Holy Roman Emperor and am above grammar.

Sigismund of Luxemburg

(in reply to scout1)
Post #: 5
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/1/2016 8:15:07 AM   
RogerJNeilson


Posts: 1247
Joined: 4/12/2012
From: Bedlington, Northumberland, UK
Status: offline
Long term Allied player, the only time I ever know where the Japanese carriers might be are when either
1. I get lucky and bomb one, or torpedo one
2. My opponent advertises their presence by either running his planes on search in the wrong place or committing massive vandalism on my forces

Its a myth, the all seeing Allied Sigint.

Roger

_____________________________

An unplanned dynasty: Roger Neilson, Roger Neilson 11, Roger Neilson 3 previous posts 898+1515 + 1126 = 3539.....Currently in 1945 of my sole surviving PBEM which has been running since the game came out.

(in reply to crsutton)
Post #: 6
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/1/2016 2:12:52 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline
Just my two cents..I think Intel is pretty accurate for the times.

_____________________________




(in reply to RogerJNeilson)
Post #: 7
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/2/2016 3:18:52 AM   
rustysi


Posts: 6447
Joined: 2/21/2012
From: LI, NY
Status: offline
So far I'm just playing Japan v the AI, so occasionally I look in to see what the intel is saying. The one I laughed about the most was when one of my carriers was reported in three different places. BTW I didn't have any carriers anywhere near any reported location. Of course one of these I'll probably be laughing out of the other side of my face. C'est la guerre.

_____________________________

It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once. Hume

In every party there is one member who by his all-too-devout pronouncement of the party principles provokes the others to apostasy. Nietzsche

Cave ab homine unius libri. Ltn Prvb

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 8
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/2/2016 3:46:47 PM   
wneumann


Posts: 3768
Joined: 11/1/2005
From: just beyond the outskirts of Margaritaville
Status: offline
Fortifications...

Maximum base fortification levels are too high at many locations. This especially true with many smaller bases, islands and bases in remote areas where extensive construction of fortifications would have been unlikely in RL. The problem is not with having fortifications, it's a matter of how much is enough without turning even the smallest island base into a Maginot Line.

I'm in PBEM (as Allies, now in 10/44) where this scenario has probably occurred. The complete Allied ground force OOB isn't large enough to crack multiple layers of well-garrisoned Jap bases at maximum fortification levels (size 6 in most cases). Without the fall of China (a JFB "gimme"), an Allied ground campaign is challenging enough - with a fall of China plus Japanese LCU reinforcements from the Home Islands, the task becomes nearly impossible. The historical OOB of Allied ground forces is simply too small to crack this "wall". Naval and air bombardment does not mitigate this.

A possible solution here is reducing the effect of fortifications, specifically connecting the maximum fortification level at a given base to the base's size, possibly using the base's current airfield & port size levels as factors in determining maximum fortification level at that location. Larger fortifications can be justified at a larger base. It's not a matter of eliminating fortifications to where they won't stop anything, it's bringing them back to reality.

AE has to be playable for both sides, not only for JFB's.

(in reply to rustysi)
Post #: 9
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/2/2016 5:44:55 PM   
Revthought


Posts: 522
Joined: 1/14/2009
From: San Diego (Lives in Indianapolis)
Status: offline
quote:

y opponent advertises their presence by either running his planes on search in the wrong


I don't have a lot of experience playing long games, but this is usually how I determine where the KB is. Sometimes SigNet use useful for telling me things like, "radio signals from hex X are high." Which could mean the KB is there, or could mean there is just a large cargo TF.

Also, LOL at coast watchers. Really, you sighted a career where?

Edit.

So far what I'd really like to see, and what is probably impossible to implement with this game engine (here's hoping for a WITPAE2 :)) is a fancy TF order like "leave at night" or "arrive at night." Trying to game it by altering routing is too uncertain and time consuming.

< Message edited by Revthought -- 3/2/2016 5:47:51 PM >

(in reply to wneumann)
Post #: 10
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/3/2016 12:27:39 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wneumann

Fortifications...

Maximum base fortification levels are too high at many locations. This especially true with many smaller bases, islands and bases in remote areas where extensive construction of fortifications would have been unlikely in RL. The problem is not with having fortifications, it's a matter of how much is enough without turning even the smallest island base into a Maginot Line.

I'm in PBEM (as Allies, now in 10/44) where this scenario has probably occurred. The complete Allied ground force OOB isn't large enough to crack multiple layers of well-garrisoned Jap bases at maximum fortification levels (size 6 in most cases). Without the fall of China (a JFB "gimme"), an Allied ground campaign is challenging enough - with a fall of China plus Japanese LCU reinforcements from the Home Islands, the task becomes nearly impossible. The historical OOB of Allied ground forces is simply too small to crack this "wall". Naval and air bombardment does not mitigate this.

A possible solution here is reducing the effect of fortifications, specifically connecting the maximum fortification level at a given base to the base's size, possibly using the base's current airfield & port size levels as factors in determining maximum fortification level at that location. Larger fortifications can be justified at a larger base. It's not a matter of eliminating fortifications to where they won't stop anything, it's bringing them back to reality.

AE has to be playable for both sides, not only for JFB's.


I'm in 1944 also and I somewhat agree with you.

For me it's a combo of the size of the OOB in terms of actual shooters and the prep system. I have enough shooters IF it didn't take three months to prep for the next target. With the forts, landing without 100% prep is pretty costly. Landing with 50% is game over for that division. You just don't have enough divisions to do it all on the timetable you must meet.

It's too late in the design, but I would have liked a scaled prep period system. It didn't take as long to prep an atoll as it did to prep Leyte. Even something as simple as a 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 reduction for Very Small/Small, Medium, All Other.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to wneumann)
Post #: 11
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/3/2016 12:37:39 PM   
btd64


Posts: 7324
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: online
I'm not sure if until size would effect training or preparing for an assault, but as a carrier capable unit can become carrier trained how about a ground unit becoming amphibious trained after say 2 landings. Then the unit would only need maybe 30 days to refit before the next op....GP

_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 12
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/3/2016 1:05:32 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: General Patton

I'm not sure if until size would effect training or preparing for an assault, but as a carrier capable unit can become carrier trained how about a ground unit becoming amphibious trained after say 2 landings. Then the unit would only need maybe 30 days to refit before the next op....GP


Sorry, I was unclear. I didn't mean Small units, etc. I meant size of the target. Prep for Kwajalein isn't as complex as prep for Saipan. I've been to Saipan. It has good sized towns. Kwaj is a few miles long. I've been to DG. For much of the perimeter of the island you can throw a baseball from the lagoon over it and into the IO. At its widest it's between 1 and 2 miles wide. At one end.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 13
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/3/2016 2:05:20 PM   
btd64


Posts: 7324
Joined: 1/23/2010
From: Mass. USA. now in OHIO
Status: online
That's fine Moose. I still like the amphibious trained idea. When the US attacked the Marianas, they hit Saipan and shortly after hit Guam and tinian with the same units. Excuse my spelling....GP

< Message edited by General Patton -- 3/3/2016 2:06:28 PM >


_____________________________

Intel i7 4.3GHz 10th Gen,16GB Ram,Nvidia GeForce MX330

AKA General Patton

WPO,WITP,WITPAE-Mod Designer/Tester
DWU-Beta Tester
TOAW4-Alpha/Beta Tester

I don't like paying for the same real estate twice..Gen. George S. Patton

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 14
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/3/2016 6:51:45 PM   
wneumann


Posts: 3768
Joined: 11/1/2005
From: just beyond the outskirts of Margaritaville
Status: offline
quote:

I'm in 1944 also and I somewhat agree with you.

For me it's a combo of the size of the OOB in terms of actual shooters and the prep system. I have enough shooters IF it didn't take three months to prep for the next target. With the forts, landing without 100% prep is pretty costly. Landing with 50% is game over for that division. You just don't have enough divisions to do it all on the timetable you must meet.

+1

I agree with you on preparation time for objectives. No amount of preparation for an objective, no amount naval or air bombardment can overcome a maxed-out fortification level.

I don't believe changes to ground force OOB's, LCU composition or element/weapon capabilities is a solution - these need to be kept historical. Likewise with any adjustments to logistics or base construction mechanics in AE, these appear to work just fine. The real issue is how much fortifications is enough.

The amphibious landing at Nauru Is in my campaign (9/44, page 69 in my AAR thread) was made with all LCU in this attack 100% prepped for the objective. The end result of this action was basically "Attacker Eliminated".


This can be readily addressed in either of two ways -

1) A change in AE adjusting maximum allowed fortification level at each individual base based on size of the base (most likely combined airfield and port size).
2) Use of an HR which does basically the same thing.


The ground war in my campaign has basically become "Verdun in the Pacific". My opponent simply made best use of what's available. Given the status quo, I would definitely recommend using an HR to address max fortifications in the absence of changes in AE itself. It's way too late in my campaign (10/44) for a HR or any modification of AE to remedy this.

< Message edited by wneumann -- 3/3/2016 7:09:47 PM >

(in reply to btd64)
Post #: 15
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/5/2016 9:30:12 AM   
jmalter

 

Posts: 1671
Joined: 10/12/2010
Status: offline
hi wneumann, i've read the post #2044 on pg. 69 of your AAR, then looked back 7-8 pages, using 'Nauru' to 'find on page'.

looks to me that your amph assault on Nauru was doomed from the start. You were unable to interdict the arrival of IJA's 22 InfDiv & 48 IndBgd, but you knew they were present, arriving in July '44. Yet you elected to assault Nauru 2 months later, w/ only 2 divs & 2 rgts, minimal arty & no combat engr units.

I don't see that you put any effort into air recon, aerial bombing, or naval bombardment of Nauru. Where's the months of bombing, or the weeks of bombardment needed to prep this target for invasion? If you'd started putting damage on Nauru in July, you could've prevented the fort build-up.

You invaded on 9/18/44, w/ a 25-ship Bombardment TF - expecting to banjo the defenders w/ 'surprise' and a mere 2:1 advantage in LCU power. Surprise, there was an add'l IMB in the hex. Also, your invaders attacked w/ a disruption (-) modifier - how many days did they spend at sea before unloading into the assault? Looks to me that they didn't suffer much damage during the unload, none of your invasion shipping suffered damage from shore-battery fire. Did you check the disrupt status of your embarked LCUs on the turn before they unloaded? Where did your LCUs load from?

I can understand your frustration at having your entire invading force wiped out, OTOH you might learn that your Nauru op was 'orrid inept, & that a plea to future opponents to accept an HR limit on fortifications is a non-starter.

Sorry for being harsh on you, but IMO you'd already lost the battle for Nauru before you loaded your invasion convoys.

(in reply to wneumann)
Post #: 16
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/9/2016 7:37:57 PM   
wneumann


Posts: 3768
Joined: 11/1/2005
From: just beyond the outskirts of Margaritaville
Status: offline
Several problems with your analysis…

1) Preventing build-up of fortifications is virtually impossible in AE given that daily (or almost daily) bombardment of a base where known or suspected construction of fortifications is underway would have to be done in order to stop fortifications from being built at all. Given that Nauru was a Japanese controlled rear-area base in my campaign since 1942, it would have been necessary on my part to continuously bombard Nauru from 1942 to the present to prevent any fort construction there. Given I had no airfield within striking range of Nauru for most of that period (not to mention the KB running around, etc) , it is likely the max fortification level at Nauru was completed well before I had any feasible (or sane) opportunity to bombard it.

2) Once construction of fortifications is completed at a base, no amount of bombardment of that base (air, naval or ground) in AE can damage or reduce the level of completed fortifications in the base. The only available means in AE to reduce fortification level of an enemy-controlled base is through deliberate or shock ground assault. Likewise, bombardment (any type) has minimal or no effect on enemy LCU inside a completed fortification.

3) Between (1) and (2) above, “months of bombing” is totally impractical at least in the sense of damaging or reducing already completed Jap fortifications on Nauru (or anywhere else) let alone preventing their construction. That even before factoring in numbers of ships and planes required for a perpetual non-stop bombardment campaign (going back to 1942) to accomplish this.

4) Perhaps I can entertain suggestions as to how many Allied LCU would be required to effectively land on Nauru (or similar base) and launch an assault with a reasonable chance of success in any period of time without completely trashing LCU in the landing force. Five divisions, ten… And where do I get enough ships to haul in a large enough force of LCU?

5) Answering the disruption question, I checked back and found my LCU landing at Nauru had no disruption (disabled elements) while aboard ships prior to the landing. What caused the disruption (-) modifier in the subsequent ground combat occurred either during landing ops or after the LCU were on shore. FYI: LCU in the Nauru landing force loaded at Noumea or Luganville. As for combat engineers… US divisions contain a small contingent of them, I had no available Combat Engineer units at the time.

6) Air recon does not provide information on existing fortification levels at a base (as is done for airfield or port sizes, etc).

7) There was no attempt to “banjo them with surprise”. I did expect my opponent to have some fortification level in place, my expectation was to simply get ashore and proceed with a gradual ground assault later. I can plead guilty to missing the fact that Nauru is an atoll – the implications of invading an atoll also known to me.

Multiply this by the number of Japanese controlled rear-area bases in any given PBEM campaign.

The take from my experience in this PBEM campaign is any JFB (my opponent included) has at minimum a 1-2 year period in which fortification levels can be maxed out in every rear-area base they control, many if not most of which are well beyond the reach of effective or “sane” AFB attack through most or all of this time period. This (of course) assumes a JFB allocates the necessary engineer LCU and supply resources to construct fortifications – these being readily available. The question I raise in this thread is how much fortification level is enough (for JFB’s to create adequate defensive positions) short of the overkill quantities now existing in stock AE and probably most mods.


< Message edited by wneumann -- 3/9/2016 7:43:49 PM >

(in reply to jmalter)
Post #: 17
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/9/2016 10:01:13 PM   
Grfin Zeppelin


Posts: 1516
Joined: 12/3/2007
From: Germany
Status: offline
The number of Engineers Japan has is quite limited. Yes sure you can build some impressive fortifications here and there but not everywhere. Not to mention the cost in supply.
That said Nauru is certainly one of the last places I would do that.

_____________________________



(in reply to wneumann)
Post #: 18
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/10/2016 5:12:36 AM   
Yaab


Posts: 4149
Joined: 11/8/2011
From: Poland
Status: offline
Don't they have, like, tons of guano in Nauru readily available for fort construction?

(in reply to Grfin Zeppelin)
Post #: 19
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/10/2016 9:32:30 AM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4114
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
Like Frau Gräfin (Willkommen zurück, werte Dame!) said - Japan cannot be strong everywhere. Japan players (like me) have the agony of choice to create a few really good strongpoints - and to have them bypassed by the Allies - or to spread the assets around, covering more bases to make bypassing more difficult - but then the fort levels tend to be lower and garrisons less numerous per base. And the more Japan expands, the more it has to defend...

I do not think it is possible that fort levels are "maxed out in every rear-area base". Japan cannot put a division and max out forts on every island, even if China is conquered. There are simply too many bases and Japanese engineering assets are too scarce (and compared to the Allies not very capable) to heavily fortify all bases (they also need to build airfields and ports and to repair battle damage). Priority for engineers would be bases that are intended to be adequately garrisoned - no point to heavily fortify places when there are few fighting troops to man the forts.

So if you see lots of troops on an island, you can expect lots of forts as well. In that case you should look for some other island with less troops and probably less forts as well. Hit them where they ain't - or at least where they are less numerous. If you absolutely need to attack a defended base, you should bring a 3:1 advantage in numbers, and extra combat engineers are a must. Isolate the battlefield and bomb&bombard and rinse&repeat for at least a few days before the landing. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but for me your debacle looks like bad target selection (Nauru is not a good airbase anyway) made worse by insufficient preparation and not using a big enough hammer.

_____________________________


(in reply to Yaab)
Post #: 20
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/10/2016 12:14:30 PM   
HansBolter


Posts: 7339
Joined: 7/6/2006
From: St. Petersburg, Florida, USA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Like Frau Gräfin (Willkommen zurück, werte Dame!) said - Japan cannot be strong everywhere. Japan players (like me) have the agony of choice to create a few really good strongpoints - and to have them bypassed by the Allies - or to spread the assets around, covering more bases to make bypassing more difficult - but then the fort levels tend to be lower and garrisons less numerous per base. And the more Japan expands, the more it has to defend...

I do not think it is possible that fort levels are "maxed out in every rear-area base". Japan cannot put a division and max out forts on every island, even if China is conquered. There are simply too many bases and Japanese engineering assets are too scarce (and compared to the Allies not very capable) to heavily fortify all bases (they also need to build airfields and ports and to repair battle damage). Priority for engineers would be bases that are intended to be adequately garrisoned - no point to heavily fortify places when there are few fighting troops to man the forts.

So if you see lots of troops on an island, you can expect lots of forts as well. In that case you should look for some other island with less troops and probably less forts as well. Hit them where they ain't - or at least where they are less numerous. If you absolutely need to attack a defended base, you should bring a 3:1 advantage in numbers, and extra combat engineers are a must. Isolate the battlefield and bomb&bombard and rinse&repeat for at least a few days before the landing. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but for me your debacle looks like bad target selection (Nauru is not a good airbase anyway) made worse by insufficient preparation and not using a big enough hammer.


Should it really be necessary to use more than two full divisions to take an atoll when in reality you simply couldn't fit that many men on the flyspeck?

_____________________________

Hans


(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 21
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/10/2016 12:21:58 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4114
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline
That flyspeck (actually an island of 8 square miles) has a population of more than 10.000 people. A division-sized garrison seems to be possible?

< Message edited by LargeSlowTarget -- 3/10/2016 12:25:35 PM >


_____________________________


(in reply to HansBolter)
Post #: 22
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/10/2016 1:41:24 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wneumann

Several problems with your analysis…




I thought jmalter's response to your previous post was unnecessarily harsh. The "bombard for months" response is pretty tired. Playing the AI, fine. Humans watch for patterns and come up on your blind side and cream your bombardment. You for sure can't send carriers with every bombardment.

There are some game engine issues you raise which are significant. The biggest is that, as you say, recon does not expose fort levels. This is very ahistoric. I've seen actual air recon photos of many island targets, and while they don't show every pillbox, and yes, Iwo Jima was an aberration, they were directionally fine for planning. In the game you don't know until you commit the prep time and the landing. And yes, secondly, bombardments should physically degrade forts. I think I've posted my photo here of the command bunker on Saipan which was hit by a 16in shell.

Add to this the fact that there is no beachhead mechanism in the game. Landing a company of cooks and clerks did not, in RL, require every shooter to rise and shock attack forward, day after day. The auto-shock attack is perhaps the greatest reality-bender in amphibious ops in the game. It's just ridiculous sometimes.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to wneumann)
Post #: 23
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/10/2016 1:41:58 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

That flyspeck (actually an island of 8 square miles) has a population of more than 10.000 people. A division-sized garrison seems to be possible?


The limiting factor on atolls is not space. It's fresh water.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 24
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/10/2016 1:49:15 PM   
Bullwinkle58


Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Like Frau Gräfin (Willkommen zurück, werte Dame!) said - Japan cannot be strong everywhere. Japan players (like me) have the agony of choice to create a few really good strongpoints - and to have them bypassed by the Allies - or to spread the assets around, covering more bases to make bypassing more difficult - but then the fort levels tend to be lower and garrisons less numerous per base. And the more Japan expands, the more it has to defend...

I do not think it is possible that fort levels are "maxed out in every rear-area base". Japan cannot put a division and max out forts on every island, even if China is conquered. There are simply too many bases and Japanese engineering assets are too scarce (and compared to the Allies not very capable) to heavily fortify all bases (they also need to build airfields and ports and to repair battle damage). Priority for engineers would be bases that are intended to be adequately garrisoned - no point to heavily fortify places when there are few fighting troops to man the forts.

So if you see lots of troops on an island, you can expect lots of forts as well. In that case you should look for some other island with less troops and probably less forts as well. Hit them where they ain't - or at least where they are less numerous. If you absolutely need to attack a defended base, you should bring a 3:1 advantage in numbers, and extra combat engineers are a must. Isolate the battlefield and bomb&bombard and rinse&repeat for at least a few days before the landing. Sorry if it sounds harsh, but for me your debacle looks like bad target selection (Nauru is not a good airbase anyway) made worse by insufficient preparation and not using a big enough hammer.


True to an extent, but in the game--the game--the bases worth the VPs are the ones the Allies need to move forward. Those are the ones fortified. And they can't be bypassed if too tough because the game makes it fatal to leave torpedo LBA in your rear. Torpedoes spawn from xAKL-delivered rice.

The bombard-for-a-few-days is a nice theory, but you get one run before needing to re-arm. And the 8-hex IJN attack rule makes bombardments with a few days notice a pure telegraph of "kick me." He sees you; you don't see the KB coming.

The game engine's choices make amphibious ops before 1944 virtually impossible in any mass form, and lead to Sir Robin to some extent. Until the Allies have massive true amphib capability and the Essex carriers opposed landings are pure hell. And yeah, 1944-45 were the years of big amphib ops in the real war. But there Japan didn't hold Suva, Pago Pago, Noumea, et al. Each huge VP pots that current gen AE JFBs always take.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to LargeSlowTarget)
Post #: 25
RE: Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade - 3/10/2016 1:57:16 PM   
LargeSlowTarget


Posts: 4114
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58


quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

That flyspeck (actually an island of 8 square miles) has a population of more than 10.000 people. A division-sized garrison seems to be possible?


The limiting factor on atolls is not space. It's fresh water.


I know - my main point was not the size of the island but the population that it can support, water supplies and other factors included. Have to answer in a hurry between meetings...

_____________________________


(in reply to Bullwinkle58)
Post #: 26
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Game Oprtions for Next Patch/Upgrade Page: [1]
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

0.162