Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

Army Disaster on Java is this a bug

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Army Disaster on Java is this a bug Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 6:52:48 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		OK Guys in one of my PBEM's I have just suffered the biggest dissapointment in the game yet (and I mean the mechanics).

The situation

I have an Army of 100k soldiers at the road junction hex above Bandoeng on Java

A strong garrison on Bandoeng
A strong garrison at Tjijitap

And a second army of 100k at Djojakarta.

Both of my main armies are dug in but my southern force is under heavy pressure and forts are falling.

Just in case of trouble I garrisoned the hex behind Djojakarta leading to Tjijitap to secure my retreat path.

My opponent para dropped into Tjijitap and Bandoeng (taking heavy casualties) at the same time as launching an attack on my southern army which achieved 4 to 1 odds with forts at level 2.

I therefore anticipated a retreat to the hex which only I controlled which would be bad but not disastrous.

Instead my entire army surrendered

To put it mildly the land combat mechanics have left me throwing things at my monitor in disgust.

Have I misunderstood something about how this should work I am really viewing this as a game breaker in my current game. If I have made a mistake thats one thing but I am really really pissed off with this one

HELP !!

Andy
Post #: 1
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 7:00:57 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline 		can't retreat into hexes controlled by both sides, an old issue

addon: it's WAD as having joint controlled hexes open to retreat would lead to some exploits..

< Message edited by String -- 1/31/2005 12:01:42 PM >

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 2
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 7:02:18 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		But the hex was only controlled by me String.

I agree that the paras had made Tjiljap contested but there was a hex between them with my forces in it alone therefore uncontested

Andy

(in reply to String)
Post #: 3
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 7:04:36 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		the hex you retreat to has to be able to trace supply to a friendly base or dot.

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 1/31/2005 12:04:58 PM >

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 4
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 7:08:11 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline 		All land movements in WITP is based on bases. You need a friendly base to go to leave a hex shared with the enemy.

In this case, dropping paras at two bases at the same time may be a gamey move by your opponent. They had few chances to do anything in this place except to cut (for the game) any retreat path and so your whole army surrendered.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 5
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 7:09:38 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		You have got to be kidding me on I secure my lines of retreat by garrisoning my retreat hex and this hex is uncontested throughout the period.

But because my opponent drops a few paras that are destroyed in the turn they land because of the size of my garrison in the base hex declares the hex 120 miles from the front contested for 1 day my entire army surrenders....

You are kidding me on right ?

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 6
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 7:11:29 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		OK this is insane if this is the case it is a complete and utter nonsence and destroys my faith in the mechanics of land combat.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 7
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 7:11:34 PM   
String


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

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

You have got to be kidding me on I secure my lines of retreat by garrisoning my retreat hex and this hex is uncontested throughout the period.

But because my opponent drops a few paras that are destroyed in the turn they land because of the size of my garrison in the base hex declares the hex 120 miles from the front contested for 1 day my entire army surrenders....

You are kidding me on right ?


this, is what we call an exploit. Have a little chat with your opponent.

I think this rule was made to stop the retreats into jungles with no friendly base within a 1000 miles...

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 8
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 7:13:05 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		sad but true. your opponent gamed your army's surrender. maybe time for yet another house rule, or a different opponent.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 9
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 7:16:02 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

You have got to be kidding me on I secure my lines of retreat by garrisoning my retreat hex and this hex is uncontested throughout the period.

But because my opponent drops a few paras that are destroyed in the turn they land because of the size of my garrison in the base hex declares the hex 120 miles from the front contested for 1 day my entire army surrenders....

You are kidding me on right ?


No

People may say the rumor of Japanese paratroops cutting the retreat was enough for the Allied commander to surrender rather than ordering retreat.

That may be a probability. But in WITP it's a 100% probability.

The key to avoid large losses in land combat (in mass surrenders or retreat) is to retreat before being forced out. For this you need to send your troops to a friendly city, they will refuse to accept orders to march to the next hex. But once they will be in the hex (and enemy are no more in the same hex as them) you may give them orders as you want.

It was better in RL to retreat in order rather than in disorder after a successfull enemy attack. So it is in WITP. That is one of the few good points of the land combat model, that needs some severe reworking to be accurate.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 10
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 7:18:22 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		OK I am calming down now but I am very dissapointed by the way this has panned out in game.

Im off to do turns in other PBEM's and ponder on this one a bit

Thanks guys I guess I am just a bit follish where the land combat routine is concerned

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 11
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 7:18:25 PM   
String


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

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

You have got to be kidding me on I secure my lines of retreat by garrisoning my retreat hex and this hex is uncontested throughout the period.

But because my opponent drops a few paras that are destroyed in the turn they land because of the size of my garrison in the base hex declares the hex 120 miles from the front contested for 1 day my entire army surrenders....

You are kidding me on right ?


No

People may say the rumor of Japanese paratroops cutting the retreat was enough for the Allied commander to surrender rather than ordering retreat.

That may be a probability. But in WITP it's a 100% probability.

The key to avoid large losses in land combat (in mass surrenders or retreat) is to retreat before being forced out. For this you need to send your troops to a friendly city, they will refuse to accept orders to march to the next hex. But once they will be in the hex (and enemy are no more in the same hex as them) you may give them orders as you want.

It was better in RL to retreat in order rather than in disorder after a successfull enemy attack. So it is in WITP. That is one of the few good points of the land combat model, that needs some severe reworking to be accurate.


i sure hope that such exploits don't happen in our little 3vs3 PBEM.. *hint*

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 12
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 7:23:04 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline 		Personally I think it's complete doodoo. At the very least, retreats should not be blocked into hexes which have friendly units, and this should be qualified by being at least brigade sized. AND...you should slap your opponent for being a knob. I'm getting sick of having to make house rules for the game to be playable. Hopefully some serious effort is being made to alleviate this severely crippled land combat model. One of the many reasons a game this size and complex can't simply be cut off from support a few months after release like others can. Just no way.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 1/31/2005 12:39:22 PM >

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 13
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 7:23:53 PM   
latosusi

 

Posts: 327
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: London/Kuopio
Status: offline 		Certainly, not the fate of the numerous regiments/divisions should be decided so quickly?

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 14
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 7:26:32 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

OK I am calming down now but I am very dissapointed by the way this has panned out in game.

Im off to do turns in other PBEM's and ponder on this one a bit

Thanks guys I guess I am just a bit follish where the land combat routine is concerned


Yeah, you and many others. I lost a game a few months ago same area (but it was a movement bug possibly caused by another upgrade fixing yet more problems post release) that was well into July 42. We'ed be into 44 by now.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 15
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 7:27:53 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: latosusi

Certainly, not the fate of the numerous regiments/divisions should be decided so quickly?


Of course not. Quite silly this is the way it is considering the wealth of wargaming pedigree around here.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to latosusi)
Post #: 16
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 7:30:08 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

You have got to be kidding me on I secure my lines of retreat by garrisoning my retreat hex and this hex is uncontested throughout the period.

But because my opponent drops a few paras that are destroyed in the turn they land because of the size of my garrison in the base hex declares the hex 120 miles from the front contested for 1 day my entire army surrenders....

You are kidding me on right ?


No

People may say the rumor of Japanese paratroops cutting the retreat was enough for the Allied commander to surrender rather than ordering retreat.

That may be a probability. But in WITP it's a 100% probability.

The key to avoid large losses in land combat (in mass surrenders or retreat) is to retreat before being forced out. For this you need to send your troops to a friendly city, they will refuse to accept orders to march to the next hex. But once they will be in the hex (and enemy are no more in the same hex as them) you may give them orders as you want.

It was better in RL to retreat in order rather than in disorder after a successfull enemy attack. So it is in WITP. That is one of the few good points of the land combat model, that needs some severe reworking to be accurate.


i sure hope that such exploits don't happen in our little 3vs3 PBEM.. *hint*


I don't think we will have this kind of problem. In this game trying to work with teammates is more important for me that the final outcome of the war. And I know enough the gamey tactics of the game to not use one by accident.

(in reply to String)
Post #: 17
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 7:32:31 PM   
AmiralLaurent

 

Posts: 3351
Joined: 3/11/2003
From: Near Paris, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

OK I am calming down now but I am very dissapointed by the way this has panned out in game.

Im off to do turns in other PBEM's and ponder on this one a bit

Thanks guys I guess I am just a bit follish where the land combat routine is concerned


Calm down one day and then talk to your opponent.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 18
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 7:42:55 PM   
latosusi

 

Posts: 327
Joined: 6/2/2004
From: London/Kuopio
Status: offline 		I used (still am) to play Gary's previous games (Pac ? Wir). It was the same problem. But now
you have 1 day round instead of 1 week. And there were some automatic reinforcements.
Overall i believe ground combat needs mega improvements. You don't really know anything about
your opponent except (1000 men, 10 gun, 10 AFV bla bla). Are they hardened combat troops
or construction workers?

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 19
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 8:16:48 PM   
ChezDaJez


Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline
quote:

In this case, dropping paras at two bases at the same time may be a gamey move by your opponent. They had few chances to do anything in this place except to cut (for the game) any retreat path and so your whole army surrendered.


I'm kinda of torn on this one.

On one hand, it's a valid military tactic to cut off supply and retreat options with paratroops. What good are paratroopers if you can't use them in the way they were intended to be used?

On the other, its gamey because of the way ZOCs are modeled in the game. Dropping 500-1000 paratroops should not prevent an army's retreat to any great extent.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to AmiralLaurent)
Post #: 20
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 8:22:04 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez

quote:

In this case, dropping paras at two bases at the same time may be a gamey move by your opponent. They had few chances to do anything in this place except to cut (for the game) any retreat path and so your whole army surrendered.


I'm kinda of torn on this one.

On one hand, it's a valid military tactic to cut off supply and retreat options with paratroops. What good are paratroopers if you can't use them in the way they were intended to be used?

On the other, its gamey because of the way ZOCs are modeled in the game. Dropping 500-1000 paratroops should not prevent an army's retreat to any great extent.

Chez


It's too abstract a model to allow this. 1,000,000 men can be stopped by 10. Ridiculous. At the very least, the defeated units should be allowed into the enemy hex. If they suffer a subsequent retreat result NEXT TURN from the enemy units present in the retreat hex, then fine, I can live with that. But at least give the unit/s a chance. Why does everything have to be resolved in one turn in this game? How long is it?

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 1/31/2005 1:32:53 PM >

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to ChezDaJez)
Post #: 21
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 8:25:30 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		What annoys me as well is the way the transports dropping the para came in apparently unescorted to drop paras in bases with over 100 fighters between them from watching the turn I shot down many many transports but one or two got through I am sorry this just seems wrong to me

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 22
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 8:27:29 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline
quote:

I'm getting sick of having to make house rules for the game to be playable.

On the other hand, who would sacrifice parachute units in this way other someone who knew their sacrifice would achieve the disproportionate result described? There was no valid military objective for such a paradrop. It was gaming the system. Reasonable people can agree between themselves not to do such things. Do you call that a house rule, or just common sense, or would this be the pointless self-limitation of a pair of lam3rz??

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 23
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 8:28:49 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

What annoys me as well is the way the transports dropping the para came in apparently unescorted to drop paras in bases with over 100 fighters between them from watching the turn I shot down many many transports but one or two got through I am sorry this just seems wrong to me


I know!!! Transport aircraft ops should be resolved in the air combat phase and be subject to the same routine as any other aircraft.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 24
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 8:47:16 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

You have got to be kidding me on I secure my lines of retreat by garrisoning my retreat hex and this hex is uncontested throughout the period.

But because my opponent drops a few paras that are destroyed in the turn they land because of the size of my garrison in the base hex declares the hex 120 miles from the front contested for 1 day my entire army surrenders....

You are kidding me on right ?


this, is what we call an exploit. Have a little chat with your opponent.

I think this rule was made to stop the retreats into jungles with no friendly base within a 1000 miles...


Why does a lousy design decision have to be "worked out" between the players? The
basic tennants of the rule are fine, but "contested" needs "definition". A force should
have to meet at least a minimum number (it's a 3,000 sq mile hex) and/or minimum
odds (at least 1 : 2 or something) to "contest" ownership of a hex. Otherwise the
situation becomes a farce such as Andy has described.

Saying "change opponants" is stupid---you've invested a lot of time and effort in a WITP
game even if it's only gone a couple of months. You need to have a game that at lease
limits idiotic possibilities to secondary issues. Land Combat is a mess currently, and
needs more than a couple of "bandaids".

_____________________________


(in reply to String)
Post #: 25
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 8:51:09 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: String

quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

You have got to be kidding me on I secure my lines of retreat by garrisoning my retreat hex and this hex is uncontested throughout the period.

But because my opponent drops a few paras that are destroyed in the turn they land because of the size of my garrison in the base hex declares the hex 120 miles from the front contested for 1 day my entire army surrenders....

You are kidding me on right ?


this, is what we call an exploit. Have a little chat with your opponent.

I think this rule was made to stop the retreats into jungles with no friendly base within a 1000 miles...


Why does a lousy design decision have to be "worked out" between the players? The
basic tennants of the rule are fine, but "contested" needs "definition". A force should
have to meet at least a minimum number (it's a 3,000 sq mile hex) and/or minimum
odds (at least 1 : 2 or something) to "contest" ownership of a hex. Otherwise the
situation becomes a farce such as Andy has described.

Saying "change opponants" is stupid---you've invested a lot of time and effort in a WITP
game even if it's only gone a couple of months. You need to have a game that at lease
limits idiotic possibilities to secondary issues. Land Combat is a mess currently, and
needs more than a couple of "bandaids".


Simply implement what I suggested in RED in an earlier post on this thread and let the units do the deciding.

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to Mike Scholl)
Post #: 26
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 8:58:46 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		Here I was thinking the no movement bug had bitten again in the same hex. HMMMPPPPHHH.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 27
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 9:00:09 PM   
Ron Saueracker


Posts: 12121
Joined: 1/28/2002
From: Ottawa, Canada OR Zakynthos Island, Greece
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: 2ndACR

Here I was thinking the no movement bug had bitten again in the same hex. HMMMPPPPHHH.


When I first saw the thread I was thinking exactly that. Good news is, whatever bit us seems to be squashed or simply gone bye bye.

< Message edited by Ron Saueracker -- 1/31/2005 2:01:02 PM >

_____________________________





Yammas from The Apo-Tiki Lounge. Future site of WITP AE benders! And then the s--t hit the fan

(in reply to 2ndACR)
Post #: 28
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 9:02:20 PM   
2ndACR


Posts: 5665
Joined: 8/31/2003
From: Irving,Tx
Status: offline 		I hope so. That pissed me off something fierce.

(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 29
RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug - 1/31/2005 9:07:26 PM   
marky


Posts: 5780
Joined: 3/8/2004
From: Wisconsin
Status: offline 		[/quote]

It's too abstract a model to allow this. 1,000,000 men can be stopped by 10. Ridiculous. At the very least, the defeated units should be allowed into the enemy hex. If they suffer a subsequent retreat result NEXT TURN from the enemy units present in the retreat hex, then fine, I can live with that. But at least give the unit/s a chance. Why does everything have to be resolved in one turn in this game? How long is it?
[/quote]

totally

even if the a force is blocking a route, then it would be NO contest at ALL if the force that was cutting the MUCH MUCH larger force was attacked by that much larger force

a 100k man army stopped by a sqaud? a platoon? a company? abattalion? a brigade? a regiment? NO FRAKKIIN WAY

not even a DIVISION could stop them,

its been said that 3 men are required to dislodge ONE man defending, and this holds any value AT ALL there no frakkin way even a divison could cut off the retreat of an ARMY

totslly rediculous

_____________________________


(in reply to Ron Saueracker)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Army Disaster on Java is this a bug Page: [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

3.859