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: Why all of the off map areas?

 
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: Why all of the off map areas? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 12:52:42 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline 		TheTomDude,

As the North west Passage hasnt opened, it becomes a long trip to get the Brits into Alaska

I see the advantage of the off map bases in that I am not forced by historical references, into sending my US forces into the Pacific or my British Forces into India.

It allows a number of approaches, all of which must be guarded against.

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to TheTomDude)
Post #: 31
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 1:27:06 AM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
... you might as well place troops on the moon ...


quote:

ORIGINAL: Don Bowen
Naw - those moonie divisions have a very poor combat record.



Couldn't adjust to the gravity of the situation?

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to Don Bowen)
Post #: 32
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 2:48:56 AM   
treespider


Posts: 9796
Joined: 1/30/2005
From: Edgewater, MD
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown


quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc
The off map areas doesn't rid us of the map edge problem...just narrows it down. It works both ways though...allows your opponents to set ambushes in select locations but allows you to patrol those same concentrated areas. Just my two cents...


To minimise this as much as possible, we don't use the same system that was used for the CHS map. The map edge zones for allowing ships to move to/from the map cover almost the entire map edge. There are no "channels" that connect to the map, allowing Japanese TFs to lurk near the channel entrances. To ambush moves from off-map, the Japanese TFs would have to cover pretty much the entire map edge.

Andrew


To clarify here...

You have a TF in Cape Town. Most of the "west" edge of the map connects to Cape Town.

So you order the TF in Cape Town to Columbo. In XX days it will arrive on map on the "west" edge at hex X#, Y# and proceed to Columbo.

However had you ordered the same TF to Perth, it may arrive on map on the "west" edge in YY days (instead of XX) at hex X$, Y$ (instead of hex X#, Y#) and proceed to Perth.

Since the entire edge is in play as an entry point it is almost pointless to try and set up the so called traps that were prevalent in CHS.


_____________________________

Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910

(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 33
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 6:08:30 AM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

When I was testing with the Allies, the most useful thing about the offmap areas was being about to move stuff between them. No more convoys through the Tasmanian Sea as the only way to send US planes to CBI. Just move them to a US off map port and then move them directly to Capetown or Aden - then pick them up and move them where you want them. Saves a lot of time and hassel.



I don't have an issue with moving stuff to/from the UK but, the off limit areas that can't be attack or intercepted I don't think is the answer, having multiple entry/exit hexes where convoys arrive or exit to/from the UK would have been a better solution.

Allowing the allied player to move forces from one side of the map to the other with zero chance of attack or intercept without using the map just seems gamey. How is this not a big advantage to the allied player? Forcing both players to use the same map should be the way to go.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

ps 30 minutes with the editor and you can move everything that arrives there to arrive on map I would strongly recoommend removing about 40% of the allied shipping if you do btut thats your choice


I don't see how this prevents the allied player from moving forces without risk from one side of the map to the other.

(in reply to jwilkerson)
Post #: 34
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 6:17:47 AM   
erstad

 

Posts: 1944
Joined: 8/3/2004
From: Midwest USA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152



Allowing the allied player to move forces from one side of the map to the other with zero chance of attack or intercept without using the map just seems gamey. How is this not a big advantage to the allied player? Forcing both players to use the same map should be the way to go.




They aren't moving from one side of the map to the other, they're going the long way around the world. Even as a sometimes-JFB I have to admit there's no real opportunity for an IJN intercept in mid-Atlantic

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 35
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 6:59:08 AM   
Grotius


Posts: 5798
Joined: 10/18/2002
From: The Imperial Palace.
Status: offline
quote:

Even as a sometimes-JFB I have to admit there's no real opportunity for an IJN intercept in mid-Atlantic


I suppose he means that Allied ships could be hunted by U-Boats in the Atlantic or some such.

I usually play Japan, but I'm not worried about it. I think the off-map movement system looks cool.

_____________________________


(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 36
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 7:33:41 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

Allowing the allied player to move forces from one side of the map to the other with zero chance of attack or intercept without using the map just seems gamey. How is this not a big advantage to the allied player?


Off-map movement is simulating the ability for the Allies to move forces between Pacific theatres via the Atlantic, without fear of interception by the Japanese along the way. I do not believe that this is gamey. It was common for them to do this in reality, such as moving US forces to the CBI. In fact this AE feature replaces the existing CBI transfer feature in the current game.

One could argue that there should be a chance of interception by U-boats - and this was discussed during development - but I don't think it is necessary to model this specifically, as I do not think there were many successful interceptions of Pacific-bound Allied warships or troop carrying convoys in the Atlantic by U-boats.

Note that the off-map movement data is stored in external files, not built into the game code, so modders could change or eliminate this feature if they wanted to.

Andrew

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 37
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 9:17:12 AM   
TheTomDude


Posts: 372
Joined: 3/3/2006
From: Switzerland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheTomDude

So the allied AI will use the "off-map-zones" to send it's ships and/or troops the other way around the globe? I.e. US troops/ships to India or British troops/ships to the Aleutians?


Sorry to bring it up again but my question has not been answered yet. Anyone?


_____________________________


(in reply to TheTomDude)
Post #: 38
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 9:58:13 AM   
pad152

 

Posts: 2871
Joined: 4/23/2000
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152



Allowing the allied player to move forces from one side of the map to the other with zero chance of attack or intercept without using the map just seems gamey. How is this not a big advantage to the allied player? Forcing both players to use the same map should be the way to go.




They aren't moving from one side of the map to the other, they're going the long way around the world. Even as a sometimes-JFB I have to admit there's no real opportunity for an IJN intercept in mid-Atlantic


In Witp if you wanted to get ships to India or Australia from the west coast of the US they had to sail across the map but, now in AE you can used the magical off map transport system where ships can't spotted or attacked, how is that not an advantage to the allied player? The allied player could send a carrier battle group or half the fleet this way. This makes the strategy of trying to cut off supplies to Australia mood, because the Allies can send everything through the magical back door.




(in reply to erstad)
Post #: 39
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 10:13:48 AM   
JeffroK


Posts: 6391
Joined: 1/26/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheTomDude


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheTomDude

So the allied AI will use the "off-map-zones" to send it's ships and/or troops the other way around the globe? I.e. US troops/ships to India or British troops/ships to the Aleutians?


Sorry to bring it up again but my question has not been answered yet. Anyone?



Dude,
Very few of us can answer your question except to say its possible, who knows how the AI will work?

Everyone else,
How about waiting for the release before working out exactly how it works?

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to TheTomDude)
Post #: 40
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 11:04:32 AM   
BShaftoe

 

Posts: 77
Joined: 6/22/2005
From: Oviedo, North of Spain
Status: offline
quote:


In Witp if you wanted to get ships to India or Australia from the west coast of the US they had to sail across the map but, now in AE you can used the magical off map transport system where ships can't spotted or attacked, how is that not an advantage to the allied player? The allied player could send a carrier battle group or half the fleet this way. This makes the strategy of trying to cut off supplies to Australia mood, because the Allies can send everything through the magical back door.


Well, I'd say that, actually, isolating Australia is a good strategy, because at the very least it decreases the frequency with which the allied player can supply Australia, by increasing the distance between the USA ports and the Australian ones. This simply puts that blocking strategy at the value it should have had from the beginning, because IRL the Allies could ship as much as they wanted to Australia through the West route, without fear of being intercepted (actually, U-boats interceptions were statistically irrelevant, because Germany had not the quantity of u-boats to make a decent cover of all the routes: at their peak capacity, they had barely enough to block UK, much less would have they been able to cover all the allied supply routes).

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 41
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 11:12:17 AM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152


quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152



Allowing the allied player to move forces from one side of the map to the other with zero chance of attack or intercept without using the map just seems gamey. How is this not a big advantage to the allied player? Forcing both players to use the same map should be the way to go.




They aren't moving from one side of the map to the other, they're going the long way around the world. Even as a sometimes-JFB I have to admit there's no real opportunity for an IJN intercept in mid-Atlantic


In Witp if you wanted to get ships to India or Australia from the west coast of the US they had to sail across the map but, now in AE you can used the magical off map transport system where ships can't spotted or attacked, how is that not an advantage to the allied player? The allied player could send a carrier battle group or half the fleet this way. This makes the strategy of trying to cut off supplies to Australia mood, because the Allies can send everything through the magical back door.






Because they had that magical back door historically?


_____________________________

Surface combat TF fanboy

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 42
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 11:30:02 AM   
Sardaukar


Posts: 9847
Joined: 11/28/2001
From: Finland/Israel
Status: offline 		Globe is round.

One question came to my mind, the ability to change LCU's HQ in West Coast and make it "magically" appear in India, for example has been removed from the game?

_____________________________

"To meaningless French Idealism, Liberty, Fraternity and Equality...we answer with German Realism, Infantry, Cavalry and Artillery" -Prince von Bülov, 1870-


(in reply to String)
Post #: 43
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 11:30:39 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline 		I would hope offmap areas would fix a lot of map edge problems that can crop up too.

Sure there were often houserules about sending KB to Aden, but it looks like you won't even need such things now.


_____________________________


(in reply to TheTomDude)
Post #: 44
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 11:32:40 AM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
In Witp if you wanted to get ships to India or Australia from the west coast of the US they had to sail across the map but, now in AE you can used the magical off map transport system where ships can't spotted or attacked, how is that not an advantage to the allied player? The allied player could send a carrier battle group or half the fleet this way. This makes the strategy of trying to cut off supplies to Australia mood, because the Allies can send everything through the magical back door.


Well, you know, the world really is round, despite what the Japanese high command might wish.

I don't see much of a problem here though? I presume it would take a LONG time to sail from San Francisco eastwards to Perth, much longer than it would take to sail to Brisbane.

...and IJ could always just take or interdict Perth to be sure?

_____________________________


(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 45
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 11:40:14 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TheTomDude


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheTomDude

So the allied AI will use the "off-map-zones" to send it's ships and/or troops the other way around the globe? I.e. US troops/ships to India or British troops/ships to the Aleutians?


Sorry to bring it up again but my question has not been answered yet. Anyone?



I'm not sure to what extent the AI uses off-map movement to move things around. Basically it follows historical assignments of units, and is script driven rather than fully dynamic, so there wouldn't be much of this anyway. One of the AI experts may be able to provide a better answer than I can.

Andrew

(in reply to TheTomDude)
Post #: 46
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 11:40:46 AM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar
One question came to my mind, the ability to change LCU's HQ in West Coast and make it "magically" appear in India, for example has been removed from the game?


Yes.

(in reply to Sardaukar)
Post #: 47
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 12:18:47 PM   
undercovergeek

 

Posts: 1526
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
In Witp if you wanted to get ships to India or Australia from the west coast of the US they had to sail across the map but, now in AE you can used the magical off map transport system where ships can't spotted or attacked, how is that not an advantage to the allied player? The allied player could send a carrier battle group or half the fleet this way. This makes the strategy of trying to cut off supplies to Australia mood, because the Allies can send everything through the magical back door.


Well, you know, the world really is round, despite what the Japanese high command might wish.

I don't see much of a problem here though? I presume it would take a LONG time to sail from San Francisco eastwards to Perth, much longer than it would take to sail to Brisbane.

...and IJ could always just take or interdict Perth to be sure?


so taking Perth 'shuts' the back door? Do you physically see the ships if theyre using off map areas to supply Oz as pad152 suggests? so if kb is on west coast of oz we can still intercept the supplies?

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 48
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 12:20:14 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek
so taking Perth 'shuts' the back door? Do you physically see the ships if theyre using off map areas to supply Oz as pad152 suggests? so if kb is on west coast of oz we can still intercept the supplies?


Well, I'm not a beta tester, so I dunno - but I presumed that you would access the off map areas from a map edge?

So if you sent stuff the Atlantic route after grinding its way through the Falklands zone or whatever, your ships would appear at the leftmost map edge, somewhere west or northwest of Perth, and it wouldnt magically appear in Perth itself.

_____________________________


(in reply to undercovergeek)
Post #: 49
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 12:28:00 PM   
undercovergeek

 

Posts: 1526
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek
so taking Perth 'shuts' the back door? Do you physically see the ships if theyre using off map areas to supply Oz as pad152 suggests? so if kb is on west coast of oz we can still intercept the supplies?


Well, I'm not a beta tester, so I dunno - but I presumed that you would access the off map areas from a map edge?

So if you sent stuff the Atlantic route after grinding its way through the Falklands zone or whatever, your ships would appear at the leftmost map edge, somewhere west or northwest of Perth, and it wouldnt magically appear in Perth itself.


never presume - you know what the say about presume!!!

i would hope it doesnt magically appear - im not usually in agreement with pad152 - but if you can theres no point in isolating Oz, or indeed shutting down the eastern supply route to it surely?

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 50
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 12:29:26 PM   
wdolson

 

Posts: 10398
Joined: 6/28/2006
From: Near Portland, OR
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

In Witp if you wanted to get ships to India or Australia from the west coast of the US they had to sail across the map but, now in AE you can used the magical off map transport system where ships can't spotted or attacked, how is that not an advantage to the allied player? The allied player could send a carrier battle group or half the fleet this way. This makes the strategy of trying to cut off supplies to Australia mood, because the Allies can send everything through the magical back door.


The off map movement system isn't a magic carpet. You don't pop a unit in at Panama and it appears at Mombasa the next day. The travel time off map is the same length it would be if that TF was sailing on map that distance. Yes the ships are safe from attack via that route, but the units are going to be off map a while.

So the US could send it's carrier fleet to the Indian Ocean if they want to, but they will be off map for a few weeks in transit. Just as the US could have done in the real war. The US didn't for both political and strategic reasons, but it was physically possible.

Someone also asked about sending British troops to the Aleutians. If you really want to, you can, but it's going to be a heck of a long voyage, more than 3/4 of the way around the world. The only reason I can think of why anyone would want to do it would be as an experiment. In a real game it's so impractical it would be pretty boneheaded to do. I would never do it. It would weaken my already weak forces in the Far East and those units would be unavailable for more than a month.

Bill

_____________________________

WitP AE - Test team lead, programmer

(in reply to pad152)
Post #: 51
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 12:38:30 PM   
undercovergeek

 

Posts: 1526
Joined: 11/21/2006
From: UK
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson



So the US could send it's carrier fleet to the Indian Ocean if they want to, but they will be off map for a few weeks in transit. Just as the US could have done in the real war. The US didn't for both political and strategic reasons, but it was physically possible.


Bill


but they do eventually reappear in an 'attackable' hex? not just their destination? and if this is the case - is there any reason why i just wouldnt plant a load of subs of a SCTF at the 'reappear' hex?


< Message edited by undercovergeek -- 6/15/2009 12:39:11 PM >

(in reply to wdolson)
Post #: 52
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 12:48:14 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek
but they do eventually reappear in an 'attackable' hex? not just their destination? and if this is the case - is there any reason why i just wouldnt plant a load of subs of a SCTF at the 'reappear' hex?


Well, that is a problem, the map edge stuff isn't eliminated. If there was a range of hexes and it plonked them down in one at random that would be ideal. That way you could go off any map edge and be OK. You could keep TFs together by giving them follow orders.

Somehow I suspect that isn't how it works, though.

_____________________________


(in reply to undercovergeek)
Post #: 53
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 12:56:23 PM   
SuluSea


Posts: 2358
Joined: 11/17/2006
Status: offline 		Boy, no matter how much effort someone puts into a game to simulate WW2 conditions there will always be one person whining because it hurts their gameplay strategy.

_____________________________

"There’s no such thing as a bitter person who keeps the bitterness to himself.” ~ Erwin Lutzer

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 54
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 1:00:03 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek
so taking Perth 'shuts' the back door? Do you physically see the ships if theyre using off map areas to supply Oz as pad152 suggests? so if kb is on west coast of oz we can still intercept the supplies?


The Allied player can, of course, see all of the Allied TFs that are currently using off-map movement, or are at an off-map base. The Japanese player does not see Allied TFs (or anything else) in the off-map areas (reflecting the level of Japanese routine surveillance in the Atlantic).

Once "off-map" TFs enter the main map via one of the map edges, they act as any other TF, so are able to be detected and intercepted.

Andrew

(in reply to undercovergeek)
Post #: 55
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 1:01:21 PM   
Iron Duke


Posts: 529
Joined: 1/7/2002
From: UK
Status: offline
see post #33

_____________________________

"Bombers outpacing fighters - you've got to bloody well laugh!" Australian Buffalo pilot - Singapore

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 56
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 1:06:42 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EUBanana
Well, I'm not a beta tester, so I dunno - but I presumed that you would access the off map areas from a map edge?


You may not be a beta tester but you got this right.

quote:

So if you sent stuff the Atlantic route after grinding its way through the Falklands zone or whatever, your ships would appear at the leftmost map edge, somewhere west or northwest of Perth, and it wouldnt magically appear in Perth itself.


That's right. TFs will appear at the map edge, not "magically" appear at the destination port.

Regarding the hex of entry, if the Allied player just selects Perth as the destination of a TF in, say, Cape Town, the TF will enter in a fairly reliably predictable hex on the map edge, which is basically on a straight line course between Cape Town and Perth (the game uses a "virtual" hex coordinate for the Cape Town base to work out this entry hex). However it is possible to select any hex on the map as a destination, so TFs could enter on pretty much any hex of the map edge, making it virtually impossible to "blockade" the entire map edge. This was done to try to minimise "map edge" effects.

I hope that explains how it works a bit better?

Andrew

(in reply to EUBanana)
Post #: 57
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 1:09:10 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek
i would hope it doesnt magically appear - im not usually in agreement with pad152 - but if you can theres no point in isolating Oz, or indeed shutting down the eastern supply route to it surely?


That's right. no "magic" appearence at the destination base. So in the example being discussed the Alled TF moving to Perth would appear on the left map edge, and is able to be detected and attacked while moving from there to Perth.

Andrew

(in reply to undercovergeek)
Post #: 58
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 1:11:26 PM   
Andrew Brown


Posts: 5007
Joined: 9/5/2000
From: Hex 82,170
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: undercovergeek
but they do eventually reappear in an 'attackable' hex? not just their destination? and if this is the case - is there any reason why i just wouldnt plant a load of subs of a SCTF at the 'reappear' hex?



TFs do appear at the map edge. If the Allied player does not vary their routing then TFs moving from, say, Cape Town to Perth would indeed enter the map at a fairly predictable location, but sensible Allied players would vary the routing to avoid this (and/or maybe send ASW TFs to that area?).

Andrew

(in reply to undercovergeek)
Post #: 59
RE: Why all of the off map areas? - 6/15/2009 1:31:54 PM   
EUBanana


Posts: 4552
Joined: 9/30/2003
From: Little England
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown
Regarding the hex of entry, if the Allied player just selects Perth as the destination of a TF in, say, Cape Town, the TF will enter in a fairly reliably predictable hex on the map edge, which is basically on a straight line course between Cape Town and Perth (the game uses a "virtual" hex coordinate for the Cape Town base to work out this entry hex). However it is possible to select any hex on the map as a destination, so TFs could enter on pretty much any hex of the map edge, making it virtually impossible to "blockade" the entire map edge. This was done to try to minimise "map edge" effects.

I hope that explains how it works a bit better?

Andrew




Surely this is absolutely ideal.

Blockading Australia completely would be quite hard, but not impossible. You can sew up the west coast through various means. Thanks to Miss Betty I doubt you'd even need Perth.

Incidentally if surface combat taskforces really do hunt down opponents like I've been dreaming about surely the deep blue sea west of Australia would be a perfect spot for some cruiser raider groups - far from airfields so you dont have to worry about being bombed so much. A single cruiser taskforce would force the Allies to divert significant force to that area for little cost to Japan, really.

This presupposes that your cruiser force could react to detected enemy convoys and thus actually engage them semi-reliably on the high seas. Submarines certainly can though from what I've seen from the AARs.

_____________________________


(in reply to Andrew Brown)
Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: Why all of the off map areas? Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   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

1.734