Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

River Crossings,good or bad for playability?

 
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 >> The War Room >> River Crossings,good or bad for playability? Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/15/2005 4:06:38 AM   
Tophat

 

Posts: 460
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Cleveland,Ohio
Status: offline

I'm in a pbm game as the japanese with ADavidB and we have had acouple of these crucial rivercrossing situations cropup. I just managed to smack a 3 Chinese corps attack back from the railcrossing above Hengchow.Getting an upclose look at how important a rivercrossing site is on the defence.
On the other hand at Singapore the roles were reversed and its taken till April 6th for me to get the troops onto Singapore and in low disruption/fatigue to do this:

Ground combat at Singapore

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 166787 troops, 1578 guns, 27 vehicles

Defending force 50060 troops, 291 guns, 0 vehicles

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 6

Japanese assault odds: 14 to 1 (fort level 6)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Singapore base !!!


Japanese ground losses:
1402 casualties reported
Guns lost 67
Vehicles lost 1

Allied ground losses:
34293 casualties reported
Guns lost 249


I was expecting a more prolonged process of base reduction,but i'm by no means complaining with results. Good commanders and having <100>planning in all my troop formations seems to do wonders.
Oh,the reason its taken me this long to actually mount this attack was due to the Allies pickingup and moving wholesale into the Singapore fortress,kind of left me looking around as it were.

I think this is a good try at a fix to extend ground combats and limit the Infantry Blitzkriegs. What say you all?
Post #: 1
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/15/2005 4:23:44 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		I like it a lot. Makes rivers be more than just a different color hexside. Turns river crossings into the deliberate operations that they had to be. But if an attacker can get across in sufficient force, the sudden surprise loss of a bridge-head can be devastating to a defender who was expecting his river line to hold.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Tophat)
Post #: 2
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/15/2005 6:03:52 AM   
CMDRMCTOAST


Posts: 673
Joined: 5/3/2003
From: Mount Vernon wa..
Status: offline 		Works for me also even though I got punished badly in India cause of it
but it slows the advances to a more realistic pace.

_____________________________

The essence of military genius is to bring under
consideration all of the tendencies of the mind
and soul in combination towards the business of
war..... Karl von Clausewitz

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 3
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/15/2005 7:34:59 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CMDRMCTOAST

Works for me also even though I got punished badly in India cause of it
but it slows the advances to a more realistic pace.


Actually I have found the reverse to be true. Because of the automatic attack, instead of taking a turn to cross the river and the next turn to attack the base, now they simply cross and keep right on going (I am refering to empty bases here).

I think the current system (meaning the auto-attack) is fine for contested crossings. 2 peves I have with the current land movement:

1) Using rail movement while advancing into enemy controlled hexes.

2) Using rail mocement out of an enemy controlled base.

Edit:
quote:

Karl von Clousewitz
You mispelled his name.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 10/15/2005 7:35:52 AM >

(in reply to CMDRMCTOAST)
Post #: 4
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/15/2005 7:36:38 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Oh no!
Don't start this thread again!
I can hear Oleg crying already!

_____________________________


(in reply to Tophat)
Post #: 5
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/15/2005 7:41:25 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: CMDRMCTOAST

Works for me also even though I got punished badly in India cause of it
but it slows the advances to a more realistic pace.


Actually I have found the reverse to be true. Because of the automatic attack, instead of taking a turn to cross the river and the next turn to attack the base, now they simply cross and keep right on going (I am refering to empty bases here).




Any player that has left a potential defensive position open deserves the loss.
Bad strategy can't be blamed on the mechanics in this case.




_____________________________


(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 6
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/15/2005 8:49:26 AM   
Tophat

 

Posts: 460
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Cleveland,Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: CMDRMCTOAST

Works for me also even though I got punished badly in India cause of it
but it slows the advances to a more realistic pace.


Actually I have found the reverse to be true. Because of the automatic attack, instead of taking a turn to cross the river and the next turn to attack the base, now they simply cross and keep right on going (I am refering to empty bases here).




Any player that has left a potential defensive position open deserves the loss.
Bad strategy can't be blamed on the mechanics in this case.





so you like the rivercrossing Shock attack rule then correct? Giving the geographic barrier of a river some form of defensive advantage.

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 7
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/15/2005 11:50:25 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		He'd better like it; it was his idea

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Tophat)
Post #: 8
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/15/2005 2:00:59 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

He'd better like it; it was his idea



Kid gets the credit for pushing it through.

My "ONE" contribution to WITP.
Being a former grunt, it was the least I could do.


< Message edited by Halsey -- 10/15/2005 2:10:04 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 9
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/15/2005 6:48:23 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey
Being a former grunt, it was the least I could do.



Bah, Rangers arent GRUNTS. Damn wanna-bes

(BTW, every thanksgiving I spent on active duty was at Camp Frank D Merril in Dahlonega, Ga. I was training Rangers at Eglin AFB when my son was concieved (I went back to Benning for 1 night to get the mail) and was in Dahlonega when he was born training Rangers). That was from 75 to 78. He was born Dec 1 '76.

"I wanna be an airbone ranger,
full of sh*t and scared of danger" USAIC airborne training cadence song.

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 10
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/15/2005 9:49:49 PM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Dahlonega was my favorite phase of the training.
The instructors told us there was a nudist camp at the bottom of the mountain.
We were all doing pushups on the side of the mountain for looking down.

By the time I got to Eglin I was pulling aggressor duty.
Since I'd already passed all my patrols.

_____________________________


(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 11
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/15/2005 10:59:38 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Dahlonega was my favorite phase of the training.
The instructors told us there was a nudist camp at the bottom of the mountain.
We were all doing pushups on the side of the mountain for looking down.

By the time I got to Eglin I was pulling aggressor duty.
Since I'd already passed all my patrols.


I was there 9 or 10 times and thats the first Ive heard of it. They either built it after I was long gone, or more likely pure BS I loved it up there. Very pretty area.

Eglin was a pure hell hole to students. Started right off with the SERS compound and went downhill from there. First time I went I jumped in with the students. Airforce used to use (probably still do) it for a bombing range. Got to see a lot of fireworks there. That, and going to the beach at Ft Walton Beach were the only good things about it.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 10/15/2005 11:01:09 PM >

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 12
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/16/2005 1:11:24 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		I'm sure it was BS.
They enjoyed tormenting the starving students.

Eglin was, and still is, a hellhole.
We staged out of there a few times with the Special Ops Air Wing.
The AC-130's were our artillery support.
They supported us more than a few times during operations.

My 1st Sgt in the batt trained for the Son Tay raid there.
If you wanted to hear him curse a whole bunch, all you had to do was mention Eglin AFB.

_____________________________


(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 13
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/16/2005 2:45:40 AM   
Halsey

 

Posts: 5069
Joined: 2/7/2004
Status: offline 		Sorry Tophat!
Got off topic.

_____________________________


(in reply to Tophat)
Post #: 14
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/16/2005 3:46:38 AM   
Tophat

 

Posts: 460
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Cleveland,Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Sorry Tophat!
Got off topic.



LOL!!! Ya think?

So we have several thumbsup for the river-crossing rule,right?

(in reply to Halsey)
Post #: 15
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/16/2005 11:08:02 PM   
Wolfpack_MatrixForum

 

Posts: 181
Joined: 3/1/2004
From: Raleigh,NC
Status: offline 		Its good for when you are defending a hex with a river between you and your enemy. Its horrible for when you have a river at your back. You bring in reinforcements and they immediately shock attack the opposing forces. Doesn't matter if you have been there 2 hours or 2 years. That part of the rule needs tweaking....

(in reply to Tophat)
Post #: 16
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/17/2005 1:44:13 AM   
Mark VII


Posts: 1838
Joined: 8/11/2003
From: Brentwood,TN
Status: offline 		River Shock attacks can also be used in the attackers favor. During my game with Captain Ed, air recon told me only one unit was in Mandalay, I assumed a Base Force. My plan was to march in quickly using the road that crosses the river, be forced into a prompt shock attack the turn I arrive and thus take the airfield before he could remove the two fighter units I strongly suspected to be based there. The op was carried out according to plan with 20 a/c and two squadrons destroyed. BANZAI!!!

------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Mandalay

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 1768 troops, 3 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 1626 troops, 11 guns, 4 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 20 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Mandalay base !!!

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 5 destroyed(really 10)
Hurricane II: 5 destroyed(really 10)

Japanese ground losses:
3 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Allied ground losses:
117 casualties reported
Guns lost 5
Vehicles lost 1
--------------------------------------------------

(in reply to Wolfpack_MatrixForum)
Post #: 17
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/17/2005 8:53:54 AM   
JeffroK


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

ORIGINAL: Wolfpack

Its good for when you are defending a hex with a river between you and your enemy. Its horrible for when you have a river at your back. You bring in reinforcements and they immediately shock attack the opposing forces. Doesn't matter if you have been there 2 hours or 2 years. That part of the rule needs tweaking....


Ditto,

No arguement with the Shock attack moving into an enemy held location, but I looped South from Mandalay, Attacked a Jap Force from a land hexside but when I moved new forces across the river they forced an Automatic Shock Attack

_____________________________

Interdum feror cupidine partium magnarum Europae vincendarum

(in reply to Wolfpack_MatrixForum)
Post #: 18
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/17/2005 3:38:41 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline 		Only the actual units moving across the river attack, not everything in the hex. There should come a point where you have a solid bridgehead and the auto-attacks stop however. My .02

(in reply to JeffroK)
Post #: 19
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/17/2005 4:01:21 PM   
tsimmonds


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

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Only the actual units moving across the river attack, not everything in the hex. There should come a point where you have a solid bridgehead and the auto-attacks stop however. My .02

Back in 1.5, I once by accident set a single unit in a hex to shock attack, while the other units in the hex were set to defend. Only the one unit attacked, but all of my units in the hex were hit by the doubled defensive fire, and all received considerable disruption and fatigue as well. Do you know from firsthand that this has been changed?

< Message edited by irrelevant -- 10/17/2005 4:02:44 PM >

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 20
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/17/2005 4:20:46 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Only the actual units moving across the river attack, not everything in the hex. There should come a point where you have a solid bridgehead and the auto-attacks stop however. My .02

Back in 1.5, I once by accident set a single unit in a hex to shock attack, while the other units in the hex were set to defend. Only the one unit attacked, but all of my units in the hex were hit by the doubled defensive fire, and all received considerable disruption and fatigue as well. Do you know from firsthand that this has been changed?


THAT part of it probably hasnt been. Dont know for sure, but I would suspect it hasnt. The units that were in the hex do not take disruption from moving over the river, and they dont attack. That much I am certain of. The last few times I took Singapore I watched the fatigue/disruption of the divisions that I had there resting for the attack after they crossed the river.

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 21
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/17/2005 4:29:55 PM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		Just to see if I have this straight:

You were attacking Singapore. You brought in reinforcements, which triggered the river/shock attack rule. Only the reinforcing unit participated in the shock attack, and none of your other units in the Singapore hex took defensive fire or received increased disruption or fatigue as a result of the reinforcing unit's shock attack.

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 22
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/17/2005 4:52:06 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Just to see if I have this straight:

You were attacking Singapore. You brought in reinforcements, which triggered the river/shock attack rule. Only the reinforcing unit participated in the shock attack, and none of your other units in the Singapore hex took defensive fire or received increased disruption or fatigue as a result of the reinforcing unit's shock attack.


Correct. The divisions that were there did not increase in fatigue or disruption. I cant say that they didnt get hit. I can say that if they did get hit, it wasnt more than they rested off in the turn so the net result was their fatigue/disruption dropped during the turn.

Edit: I should note that in both cases, the allies made no effort to evac troops from Malaya. These were both e mail games.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 10/17/2005 4:57:05 PM >

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 23
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/18/2005 11:17:18 PM   
Tophat

 

Posts: 460
Joined: 8/6/2002
From: Cleveland,Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Just to see if I have this straight:

You were attacking Singapore. You brought in reinforcements, which triggered the river/shock attack rule. Only the reinforcing unit participated in the shock attack, and none of your other units in the Singapore hex took defensive fire or received increased disruption or fatigue as a result of the reinforcing unit's shock attack.


This is the same situation I was in as well in my Singapore attack. Also alot of the casualties I took were not actual dead/losses.
My problem was i didn't bring enough engineers to the party to begin with.

(in reply to tsimmonds)
Post #: 24
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/19/2005 5:20:37 PM   
RUPD3658


Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline 		This rule is kicking my ass is the PI. My units can't seem to cross into Clark Filed at the same time and are being shot to pieces.

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke


(in reply to Tophat)
Post #: 25
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/26/2005 12:41:48 AM   
1275psi

 

Posts: 7979
Joined: 4/17/2005
Status: offline 		I LOVE THIS RULE!!!


there -thats my opinion

(in reply to RUPD3658)
Post #: 26
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/26/2005 3:16:00 AM   
tsimmonds


Posts: 5498
Joined: 2/6/2004
From: astride Mason and Dixon's Line
Status: offline 		I'll let you know how I really feel here in a few days; getting ready to move into Singapore....but as a result of the auto shock-attack, I took HK the same turn I moved into the hex

_____________________________

Fear the kitten!

(in reply to 1275psi)
Post #: 27
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/26/2005 5:24:10 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658

This rule is kicking my ass is the PI. My units can't seem to cross into Clark Filed at the same time and are being shot to pieces.


My opinion for what its worth is this: Better to approach Clark from Naga and San Marc whatever at the same time. This forces the Allies to either surrender Clark to defend Manila (which personally I feel is a mistake) or abandon Manila to avoid being cut off. Hmmmm. Isnt this what Mac did?

(in reply to RUPD3658)
Post #: 28
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/27/2005 3:43:36 AM   
dereck


Posts: 2800
Joined: 9/7/2004
From: Romulus, MI
Status: offline 		I think the rule sucks.

Please see the picture below. I had units move up from Rangoon and engage the Japanese forces WITHOUT crossing any rivers. Then after a few turns I had other troops arrive from the north and west (which did cross rivers) BUT I WAS ALREADY ON THE OTHER SIDE!

Now ALL I can do is shock attack even when I specifically go through and set everything to deliberate attack.

I thought if you already had troops on the other side of the river you wouldn't shock attack.






Attachment (1)

_____________________________

PO2 US Navy (1980-1986);
USS Midway CV-41 (1981-1984)
Whidbey Island, WA (1984-1986)
Naval Reserve (1986-1992)

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 29
RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? - 10/27/2005 4:11:26 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		I like the rule. Rivers mean something and encourage LCU movement other than the shortest distance between two points method. Burma is interesting in that the shortest distance means river assaults but flanking opportunities abound.




_____________________________


(in reply to dereck)
Post #: 30
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> The War Room >> River Crossings,good or bad for playability? 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

3.392