Strategies in the Pacific (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Kapten Q -> Strategies in the Pacific (9/6/2006 4:35:36 PM)

Found this excellent website.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/USA-P-Strategy/

This is good

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/

Actually start here!

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/

Enjoy

Q



AmiralLaurent -> RE: Strategies in the Pacific (9/6/2006 8:12:12 PM)

What I find interesting in this book (it is a copy of one of the 'Green Books' of the History Branch of US Army) is that it shows Pacific logistics were far more complicated (and so allowed much less operations) than in WITP.

For example, the 'shipping crisis' described in fall 1942. By this date, I suspect most Allied players have hundred of AP/AK just doing nothing in port. Of course (before fanboys tell it) it's exactly the same with Japan, shipping capacity is not a problem. Japan has in the game enough ships to carry at the same time the whole Southern Area Army, supplies and fuel to supply it, and bring resources/oil to Japan.

So, while the book is interesting to read, the world he describes has not much to do with WITP.



KDonovan -> RE: Strategies in the Pacific (9/6/2006 8:16:09 PM)

quote:

For example, the 'shipping crisis' described in fall 1942. By this date, I suspect most Allied players have hundred of AP/AK just doing nothing in port.


thats the truth.....as the allies...i've had 100 AKs sitting around in various ports for about 6 months now



TulliusDetritus -> RE: Strategies in the Pacific (9/6/2006 8:18:28 PM)

Too bad the "Beans, Bullets, and Black Oil - The Story of Fleet Logistics Afloat in the Pacific During World War II" is still "under development" [:(]

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/BBBO/index.html

"This volume is 'under development' and will be completed as time allows..."



BrucePowers -> RE: Strategies in the Pacific (9/6/2006 8:54:32 PM)

I agree with all. I still find that WiTP is a fun game to play.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Strategies in the Pacific (9/6/2006 9:11:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BrucePowers

I agree with all. I still find that WiTP is a fun game to play.




But wouldn't it be more fun if you got to struggle with the same restrictions as your historical counterparts instead of getting a "free ride" logistically?



jolly_pillager -> RE: Strategies in the Pacific (9/7/2006 5:28:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KDonovan

quote:

For example, the 'shipping crisis' described in fall 1942. By this date, I suspect most Allied players have hundred of AP/AK just doing nothing in port.


thats the truth.....as the allies...i've had 100 AKs sitting around in various ports for about 6 months now


Why?

The US has enough supplies that you cannot possibly drain it dry no matter how many AK's you station there.

There is no excuse for you not to be hauling forward everything you can...all major supply hubs should have >500k of fuel and supplies...even minor hubs should be >100k, and key bases like Pearl, Brisbane, etc. should be pushing the 1 million mark. Having a flexible and large logistics base close to the front is very useful.



jolly_pillager -> RE: Strategies in the Pacific (9/7/2006 5:32:40 AM)

As another issue...the problem isn't an overabundance of AK's...the problem is that ships caqn load/ unload in ridiculously short times and in ridiculously large numbers from little sand spits in the middle of nowhere.

IRL I recall stories of AK's waiting for over a month at some places just sitting in line to unload...

It also doesn't help that WitP (stock) only gives a few sizes of AK...which certainly overstates lifting capacity in total while understating total numbers of vessels (since smaller traders are not represented).




KDonovan -> RE: Strategies in the Pacific (9/8/2006 5:42:45 AM)

quote:

There is no excuse for you not to be hauling forward everything you can...all major supply hubs should have >500k of fuel and supplies...even minor hubs should be >100k, and key bases like Pearl, Brisbane, etc. should be pushing the 1 million mark. Having a flexible and large logistics base close to the front is very useful


key base's are packed to the rim already. Stacking minor hubs with that much loot is just asking for the japanese to take and steal all that precious supply. Don't like to have easily taken base's over 7000 supply points



mogami -> RE: Strategies in the Pacific (9/8/2006 6:28:17 AM)

Hi, The AP the Allies have in 1942 are not really suited for an Island hopping campaign. They are fine for moving units between freindly bases but not for conducting opposed landings. As for AK well I do not load infantry onto AK except for turn 1 as Japan when I am forced to do so because they begin already loaded.

If players do not mind craming assault troops onto Ak then I guess they have lots of transports.  If they don't mind sending large liners to conduct landings then I quess they have plenty. I wait till I have "assault" ships before conducting opposed landings.  So I do have the historical crisis and am limited in my operational options.

(game fine, players broke)



bradfordkay -> RE: Strategies in the Pacific (9/8/2006 8:44:19 AM)

" (game fine, players broke) "

No I'm not... I've saved so much money by not purchasing games since WITP came out that I'm way ahead of normal. [:'(]


I used to buy 10-20 games a year. I have purchased exactly four new computer games since WITP (and one was WPO, which I won't play until ABs map is adopted for it!).



mogami -> RE: Strategies in the Pacific (9/8/2006 9:52:01 AM)

Hi, Send me some Pilsner Urquell and I'll send you my Japanese turn 1.



Hoplosternum -> RE: Strategies in the Pacific (9/8/2006 3:58:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mogami

Hi, The AP the Allies have in 1942 are not really suited for an Island hopping campaign. They are fine for moving units between freindly bases but not for conducting opposed landings. As for AK well I do not load infantry onto AK except for turn 1 as Japan when I am forced to do so because they begin already loaded.

If players do not mind craming assault troops onto Ak then I guess they have lots of transports.  If they don't mind sending large liners to conduct landings then I quess they have plenty. I wait till I have "assault" ships before conducting opposed landings.  So I do have the historical crisis and am limited in my operational options.

(game fine, players broke)


I have found that the allies are short of APs when it comes to counter attack in '43. The assualt shipping carries little stuff and even by mid '43 you don't have that many. So you need to use APs if you are going to invade at that stage.

I dare say this is fairly realistic but it's tough to pull off multi divisional landings at this stage unless you are going to use lots of AKs. And you need to land with multiple divisions (plus support stuff) if you are going up against an even moderately defended island.

Troop transports are one of the allies items in shortest supply IME. In my May '43 game my Pacific and Oz bases, while not short of fuel and supply, certainly are not full. My AKs work around the clock. It's tough to find the transport capacity to keep everything stocked and the reinforcements flowing.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Strategies in the Pacific (9/8/2006 6:42:48 PM)

If you check out history, you'll find that it wasn't until November of 1943 that the Allies mounted their first "long distance" amphibious assults. Guadalcanal was a "landing", but thay had pretty good intelligence that the opposition would be small and limited. Even then, Japanese reaction forced them to leave the Marines "half supplied" because they couldn't unload fast enough to get everything ashore. 1943 was primarily a year of "shore to shore hops" up the Solomans and in New Guinea done as much with landing craft as real ships. The Gilberts were the first "big hop" attempted in the Pacific, and it wasn't just the lack of CV's that made it so....



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.765625