Limits for Atoll Islands build up (Full Version)

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



Message

ny59giants -> Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/20/2007 11:10:12 PM)

I have just started a two day turn PBEM game as the Allies using CHS scenario 158. Before we get going to far, I may ask for an additional house rule concerning what level of fortification can be built on an atoll (I think level 6 would be enough and this is just a number I'm throwing out there) along with no more LCU's than 2 divisions worth or their equivalent (3 Regiments or 3 Brigades equal 1 division).

I would appreciate any feedback.



castor troy -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/20/2007 11:22:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I have just started a two day turn PBEM game as the Allies using CHS scenario 158. Before we get going to far, I may ask for an additional house rule concerning what level of fortification can be built on an atoll (I think level 6 would be enough and this is just a number I'm throwing out there) along with no more LCU's than 2 divisions worth or their equivalent (3 Regiments or 3 Brigades equal 1 division).

I would appreciate any feedback.



If I would play as the Japanese with such a house rule I would also like a house rule about the max number of US troops attacking at once. Would be weird to only be allowed to place 10.000 troops at an atoll but the attacker comes in with 100.000 at once... [8|]




jwilkerson -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/21/2007 12:01:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I have just started a two day turn PBEM game as the Allies using CHS scenario 158. Before we get going to far, I may ask for an additional house rule concerning what level of fortification can be built on an atoll (I think level 6 would be enough and this is just a number I'm throwing out there) along with no more LCU's than 2 divisions worth or their equivalent (3 Regiments or 3 Brigades equal 1 division).

I would appreciate any feedback.


I've thought about the "atoll" fortication level a fair bit and tried to do some objective calculations to support it - bottom line - I agree with the level 6 answer.

As to stacking that is tougher. How many people could be "sustained" on an island like Betio, is probably different from how many could be involved in an attack. In otherwords, you might be able to "overstack" for an attack. But for the purpose of house rules, I guess the players should first agree on what they want the outcome to be. Should it be possible to take an Atoll, etc.? Then the negotiation can proceed from that point. For single/small groups of Atoll Islands, like Wake, Midway, Betio, I would say a reinforced regiment is about all that could be sustained and a reinforced Division is about all that could attack. Those numbers match up pretty much with what happened historically. Very large many islanded Atolls like Kwajalein could certainly have more, but you have to decide if you want to differentiate. I'd lean towards "less is more" if I was one of the parties. Also, you might want to consider some places like Truk, to not be Atolls at all, but "small island/island groups". Much more area to spread out in at Truk.




niceguy2005 -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/21/2007 12:07:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

I have just started a two day turn PBEM game as the Allies using CHS scenario 158. Before we get going to far, I may ask for an additional house rule concerning what level of fortification can be built on an atoll (I think level 6 would be enough and this is just a number I'm throwing out there) along with no more LCU's than 2 divisions worth or their equivalent (3 Regiments or 3 Brigades equal 1 division).

I would appreciate any feedback.


I've thought about the "atoll" fortication level a fair bit and tried to do some objective calculations to support it - bottom line - I agree with the level 6 answer.

As to stacking that is tougher. How many people could be "sustained" on an island like Betio, is probably different from how many could be involved in an attack. In otherwords, you might be able to "overstack" for an attack. But for the purpose of house rules, I guess the players should first agree on what they want the outcome to be. Should it be possible to take an Atoll, etc.? Then the negotiation can proceed from that point. For single/small groups of Atoll Islands, like Wake, Midway, Betio, I would say a reinforced regiment is about all that could be sustained and a reinforced Division is about all that could attack. Those numbers match up pretty much with what happened historically. Very large many islanded Atolls like Kwajalein could certainly have more, but you have to decide if you want to differentiate. I'd lean towards "less is more" if I was one of the parties. Also, you might want to consider some places like Truk, to not be Atolls at all, but "small island/island groups". Much more area to spread out in at Truk.



I would agree with those numbers. Sustaining more than a regiment, with support seems untenable on an atoll. A single division attacking at a time also sounds about right.



eloso -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/21/2007 12:08:23 AM)

This is how FuererKrieg and I are playing it in our game. I also have another game using this set of rules for atolls. It is still early in both games so it will be interesting to see how it plays out.

10. Fortifications:

Maximum fortification on an atoll is limited to the airfield SBS + port SBS. For example Wotje is port 1 (1) and airfield 0 (1). The max fortifications would be 1+1 = 2. Note some Atolls will start with larger fortifications – these should not be increased. Exception is if the total SBS = 0 in which case 1 fort level may be constructed there.

11. Atoll Stacking:

Defensive Stacking limits:

• Any combination of units up to 10,000 men per max fort level as above in LCUs may be stationed at an Atoll. Each vehicle (tank, engineering vehicle, etc) counts as 4 men. If an atoll starts with higher fort level, that will determine troops limits.

Offensive Stacking limits:

• Any combination of units up to 20,000 men per max fort level as above may be stacked at an Atoll. Each vehicle (tank, engineering vehicle, etc) counts as 4 men. If an atoll starts with higher fort level, that will determine troops limits.
If an atoll is attacked and taken then the new owner should attempt to get to the defensive stacking limit within 1 month.



Chad Harrison -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/21/2007 2:17:02 AM)

I am still wading through my first and only PBEM game, and we are in August of 1942 (stock game, me as the Allies).

I seem to hear and/or see a lot of grumblings about lvl 9 forts on atolls and other islands. Whats the problem? Are they too protective? Do some consider a lvl 9 fort to be too great of protection from what could be realistically built on an island? In game terms, do some of you consider a lvl 9 fort to be MORE than Iwo? Less than Iwo? In game terms, Iwo with a lvl 9 fort AND mountain is 9 times your defensive AV, before all the other modifiers come into play. Ouch.

If its a problem, I may also look to address it as a house rule in my current and only PBEM game before it becomse too much of a problem.

Thanks



AmiralLaurent -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/21/2007 6:34:36 PM)

I'm not sure Iwo is an atoll in WITP. It certainly isn't IRL, and the battle of Iwo opposed 22 000 Japanese to more than 100 000 Americans.

The problem is more related to islands like Tarawa, Makin and so on... I think that the most extreme example was an old PBEM where almost half a million of soldiers of both sides were fighting at some stage... the island is smaller than 5 square miles IIRC.

As for forts I will set the minimum "maximum" to 3 or 4... It's fairly easy to build field forts to level 3, and it will be strange to see attacking troops having better forts than defenders...



Andy Mac -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/21/2007 7:10:25 PM)

I am sure most folks know my views on this....

Level 9 forts IMO should be restricted to key non atoll bases with large AF's i.e. capable of 5+ AF and the 'inner perimeter'

The fact is 20,000 men on level 9 forts on an island or atoll can eventually be overcome by 60,000 attackers

So I would support a 1:2 or 1:3 ratio allowed for long term occupation versus assault mode allowing for lower level forts.

(60,000 defenders needs proportionatly more because air attack will only disrupt the same 3 or 4 units for the attackers to attack (those few units attacked will be damaged perhaps to much compared to history for dug in troops but at higher unit counts more of the defenders will not be disrupted at all by air attacks so as the game scales up it cannot cope)

i.e. 1 Division divided into regts behind level 9 forts is eventually able to be worn down.

3 Divs split into 9 Regts well only 3 will ever be disrupted in a single turn max by air attack and the air units will concentrate on those units over time (those 3 will take hefty casualties but the air to mud model wont allow spreading the targeting))

Andy



Mike Scholl -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/21/2007 7:36:03 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison
I seem to hear and/or see a lot of grumblings about lvl 9 forts on atolls and other islands. Whats the problem? Are they too protective? Thanks



The problem with a coral atoll is room and depth. They rarely extend more than a few feet above the surrounding water, which makes it difficult to dig to any depth, and they are pretty flat topographically so anything you build above ground sticks out like a "sore thumb". And while an atoll may encompass a significant area, the "solid ground" is generally limited to a few of the larger islets surrounding it (Larger being a relative term. Many of the "islets" making up an atoll are hardly large enough to hold a picnic on).

There is nothing like the "terrain" available on a real "island" such as Iwo Jima (or whatever they're calling it today) or Saipan or Guadalcanal (where 80% of the land surface was never involved in the fighting at all). Reality is that there is just no "room" to deploy large fortifications or significant numbers of troops for any extended time. The attacker can make use of much more strength as he didn't have to "live" there. His forces can come ashore more or less on a conveyor, keeping maximum force involved and feeding and supplying it from ships.



pauk -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/21/2007 7:40:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


such as Iwo Jima (or whatever they're calling it today)


Iwo To.



Nikademus -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/21/2007 8:14:41 PM)

Iwo Too



Chad Harrison -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/21/2007 9:36:42 PM)

Thanks Mike and Andy. Makes sense. Seems like more than a house rule for stacking limits at this point in my game, I just need a rule to prevent splitting divisions in the same hex.



blam0 -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/21/2007 11:43:01 PM)

I think 100K Jap troops on an atoll would be just fine! [:D]

That coral stuff is good for digging.[:D]

(...not that I might have a stake in this game of which ny59giants is referring to[sm=innocent0004.gif]



Mike Scholl -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/22/2007 12:32:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pauk


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


such as Iwo Jima (or whatever they're calling it today)


Iwo To.



I guess the "sarcastic" tone was lost in the translation. Serves me right for trying to be sarcastic.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/22/2007 12:35:53 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: blam0

I think 100K Jap troops on an atoll would be just fine! [:D]

That coral stuff is good for digging.[:D]



Right! On Betio, if each of the 100K Japs picked up a shovel they could all be under water in two scoops...



Yakface -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/22/2007 5:25:53 AM)

ny59giants, IIRC scn 158 includes the nikmod for A2A combat. I've played scn157 which has the same mod and it produces a lot od damaged aircraft from just flying CAP. Has a very bad effect on the enjoyment of the game. IIRC Nik has done an update for his mod lowering the durabilites of the planes to address this. If you are just starting I would strongly suggest finding out if Nik has adjusted scn 158 before starting.



Helpless -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/22/2007 10:23:22 AM)

quote:

If you are just starting I would strongly suggest finding out if Nik has adjusted scn 158 before starting.


it was updated

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1471289



Nikademus -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/22/2007 4:18:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yakface

ny59giants, IIRC scn 158 includes the nikmod for A2A combat. I've played scn157 which has the same mod and it produces a lot od damaged aircraft from just flying CAP. Has a very bad effect on the enjoyment of the game. IIRC Nik has done an update for his mod lowering the durabilites of the planes to address this. If you are just starting I would strongly suggest finding out if Nik has adjusted scn 158 before starting.


he has and Andrew has uploaded it to his CHS website.





ny59giants -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/22/2007 7:23:18 PM)

We are going with only 10k troops and level 6 forts max on atolls.
We are using CHS Scenario 158c (which I understand to be the latest and greatest from Nik). [:D][:D]



blam0 -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/22/2007 9:25:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

We are going with only 10k troops and level 6 forts max on atolls.
We are using CHS Scenario 158c (which I understand to be the latest and greatest from Nik). [:D][:D]



<wonders if we really are using 158c> Erm...I might need to check that [:(]



dtravel -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/22/2007 11:29:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: Chad Harrison
I seem to hear and/or see a lot of grumblings about lvl 9 forts on atolls and other islands. Whats the problem? Are they too protective? Thanks



The problem with a coral atoll is room and depth. They rarely extend more than a few feet above the surrounding water, which makes it difficult to dig to any depth, and they are pretty flat topographically so anything you build above ground sticks out like a "sore thumb". And while an atoll may encompass a significant area, the "solid ground" is generally limited to a few of the larger islets surrounding it (Larger being a relative term. Many of the "islets" making up an atoll are hardly large enough to hold a picnic on).

There is nothing like the "terrain" available on a real "island" such as Iwo Jima (or whatever they're calling it today) or Saipan or Guadalcanal (where 80% of the land surface was never involved in the fighting at all). Reality is that there is just no "room" to deploy large fortifications or significant numbers of troops for any extended time. The attacker can make use of much more strength as he didn't have to "live" there. His forces can come ashore more or less on a conveyor, keeping maximum force involved and feeding and supplying it from ships.

Before people starting limiting numbers on atolls, they need to remember that the game considers Tarawa, Palau and a number of other places where the Japanese defended in greater than division strength to be "atolls".



blam0 -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/23/2007 12:10:53 AM)

Fair enough. What suggestion would you make then?  Is there an in-game way to determine how much bigger Tarawa is than, Attu?



Mike Scholl -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/23/2007 3:24:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel
Before people starting limiting numbers on atolls, they need to remember that the game considers Tarawa, Palau and a number of other places where the Japanese defended in greater than division strength to be "atolls".



Huh? Tarawa was defended by a reinforced SNLF, not anything even close to the size of a Division. And the Palaus are most certainly not an Atoll..., though Ulithi to the North East was. Better take another look at the books before you hit the keys there, dtravel.



Admiral DadMan -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/23/2007 6:35:22 AM)

And from this corner...

If my opponent is stupid enough to strand 2 divisions on Tarawa... that's fine with me. [:D]



dtravel -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/23/2007 8:25:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel
Before people starting limiting numbers on atolls, they need to remember that the game considers Tarawa, Palau and a number of other places where the Japanese defended in greater than division strength to be "atolls".



Huh? Tarawa was defended by a reinforced SNLF, not anything even close to the size of a Division. And the Palaus are most certainly not an Atoll..., though Ulithi to the North East was. Better take another look at the books before you hit the keys there, dtravel.


And what other units were there? Construction forces, support troops that in WiTP would be considered Base Forces. A quick check lists 10,000 or more Japanese military personnel at most of the "atolls". That sounds like division strength to me.

And Palau is most definitely an atoll in stock WiTP. I just double checked, it shows as terrain type Ca.

As for what any stacking limit should be, I don't think there's a simple "one size fits all" answer. Short of determining one for each island hex individually, I don't think you can.



bradfordkay -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/23/2007 9:12:42 AM)

My take on it is that stacking limits for atolls either guarantees that one can't be taken or can't be held. That is to say, if the atoll stacking limit allows the invader to come with enough troops to overcome the defender, then the attacker knows that he only needs that many troops and can conserve the rest for elsewhere. This takes the risk out of the offensive, as you know just what it will take to capture every island.

In this I agree with Adm. Dadman: if the defender wants to strand two divisions on Tarawa, he'll probably wish he hadn't as that island is bypassed and cut off.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/23/2007 3:09:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel


quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl


quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel
Before people starting limiting numbers on atolls, they need to remember that the game considers Tarawa, Palau and a number of other places where the Japanese defended in greater than division strength to be "atolls".



Huh? Tarawa was defended by a reinforced SNLF, not anything even close to the size of a Division. And the Palaus are most certainly not an Atoll..., though Ulithi to the North East was. Better take another look at the books before you hit the keys there, dtravel.


And what other units were there? Construction forces, support troops that in WiTP would be considered Base Forces. A quick check lists 10,000 or more Japanese military personnel at most of the "atolls". That sounds like division strength to me.

And Palau is most definitely an atoll in stock WiTP. I just double checked, it shows as terrain type Ca.



You are using "stock" WITP as your historical reference? Try looking at a book. Betio/Tarawa was held by just under 5000 men, about 1000 of which were "non-combat Korean Laborors", and another 1500 of which were assorted "service troops" who were used in the combat. And the Palaus are most definately not "atolls" no matter what stock WITP thinks. The point is that in reality there are certain finite limits on how many troops per square meter you can usefully place on an island..., and atolls are very limited in useable "square meters".



dtravel -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/23/2007 10:39:29 PM)

I'm not using the game as a historical reference.  Tarawa was one of the weakest defended in terms of straight numbers and I think that its unrealistic to use it as the standard for all other island defenses.

And while there is a physical limit to how many people can be stuffed in to a given area, it is not as low as you might think.  The city I live in is only 17 square miles in size, with a good half of that undeveloped due to zoning and conservation laws, yet still has a population of over 55,000 in what is considered "low density" housing.

Now, as for why players are putting so many more troops on these islands than was done in real life, I would suggest looking at the fact that in the game Japan has two to three times the shipping it did in real life and doesn't have to garrison anywhere except China and Manchuria.  If the Japanese players had only half the shipping and had to maintain substantial garrison forces in SE Asia, the Philippines and the DEI then they probably wouldn't be putting five divisions on Tarawa.



Oleg Mastruko -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/23/2007 10:56:54 PM)

quote:

Betio/Tarawa was held by just under 5000 men, about 1000 of which were "non-combat Korean Laborors"


Betio and Tarawa are not the same thing. The island of Betio is perhaps less than 1/15th of the whole Tarawa atoll (a rough estimate). Indeed, it was the only place occupied by Japanese in any force, and there were around 5.000 of them there.

Had they, for any possible reason, occupied the whole atoll (the remaining 90%+ of the area), it is my impression they could have installed 30-40, perhaps even 50k people there easily. However, Admiral DadMan is perfectly correct then, when he says "If my opponent is stupid enough to strand 2 divisions on Tarawa... that's fine with me [:D]"

Currently around 30k people live there (on the WHOLE Tarawa atoll), quote from Wikipedia:

"The population (as of 1990) was 28,802. The population is mostly Gilbertese (Micronesian). This probably exceeds the carrying capacity of the islands and is maintained at its current level without starvation principly due to foreign aid, largely from New Zealand."

Given the low maintenance levels of IJN troops, I think 40-50k could be crammed there, + population that was there in WW2 period (certainly smaller than today) could have been removed by the Japanese or.... worse.... it's not like they were squeamish about those things. I'd consider that strategic insanity, and as USN would simply bypass and isolate that place (or overwhelm, to invest mucho points for ground losses that would ensue).

I think people here in general underestimate atolls..... because they look small on World Atlas maps.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Limits for Atoll Islands build up (6/23/2007 11:43:43 PM)




I'm not using the game as a historical reference. Tarawa was one of the weakest defended in terms of straight numbers and I think that its unrealistic to use it as the standard for all other island defenses.

And while there is a physical limit to how many people can be stuffed in to a given area, it is not as low as you might think. The city I live in is only 17 square miles in size, with a good half of that undeveloped due to zoning and conservation laws, yet still has a population of over 55,000 in what is considered "low density" housing.

And how many hundreds of square miles of "hinterland" is needed to support the 3,236 people per square mile in this town? You know, the area where they grow the food and generate the power and dump the trash and sewage you folks generate. Also, you can't build much in the way of "high-rise" accomodations on an atoll islet that may be attacked and bombed.

Now, as for why players are putting so many more troops on these islands than was done in real life, I would suggest looking at the fact that in the game Japan has two to three times the shipping it did in real life and doesn't have to garrison anywhere except China and Manchuria. If the Japanese players had only half the shipping and had to maintain substantial garrison forces in SE Asia, the Philippines and the DEI then they probably wouldn't be putting five divisions on Tarawa.

I agree with you here, the designers gave the Japanese way too much shipping. They also made way to much of the IJA available for use in the Pacific by making garrisoning virtually unnecessary. The Japanese were still keeping Korea heavily garrisoned during WW II and they had siezed that in 1910.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.9375