RE: hexside control

RE: hexside control (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition

Message

Andy Mac -> RE: hexside control (6/1/2009 12:16:51 AM)
YH I started a thread in devpt forum on this one I think its a unique little issue lets switch the debate to there

Yamato hugger -> RE: hexside control (6/1/2009 12:51:27 AM)
Need to password this thread - keep them damn devs out [:D]

Dili -> RE: hexside control (6/1/2009 1:16:52 AM)
quote: Its an unoccupied base, so why shouldnt part of the advancing force be allowed to continue to advance while another part secures the area? I dont see a thing in the world "exploitive" about that. It isn't what i said? If the enemy units are bottled up in a small city there is no problems for the other forces keeping the advance. Of course the ideal was to have % of hex ownership.

Yamato hugger -> RE: hexside control (6/1/2009 1:26:57 AM)
I was actually referring to Casters comment [;)]

Yamato hugger -> RE: hexside control (6/1/2009 3:09:51 AM)
I dont think I have even mentioned the combat events report yet. This is what this looks like: COMBAT EVENTS FOR 12/16/41 ADJUST TASK FORCE MISSIONS CALCULATE RANGE TO ENEMY CALCULATE AIR SUPERIORITY ASSIGN COMPUTER CONTROLLED UNITS Combat Events: NAVAL REACTION PHASE LOADING/UNLOADING TASK FORCES Amphibious TF 319 unloading at Batangas Amphibious TF 86 unloading at Kudat TASK FORCE LOADING/UNLOADING COMPLETE CALCULATING TASK FORCE PATHS MINESWEEPING OPERATIONS NAVAL MOVEMENT PHASE Task Force 139 encounters enemy Task Force at 56 , 90 Japanese Ships Reported to be Approaching! Allied TF begins to get underway Amphibious TF 139 withdrawing to Takao after combat Task Force 100 encounters enemy Task Force at 72 , 90 ADJUST SHIP FUEL NIGHT AIR OPERATIONS PHASE AIRCRAFT LANDING SHIP CREWS PERFORM DAMAGE CONTROL AMC Hokoku Maru sinks.... CPT Koh, A. has been KILLED SURFACE COMBAT CHECK DIVIDE CRIPPLED TFs SHIP CREWS PERFORM DAMAGE CONTROL xAK Syoka Maru sinks.... SHIP CREWS PERFORM DAMAGE CONTROL Amphibious TF 86 unloading at Kudat Amphibious TF 319 unloading at Batangas REPAIRING SHIPS END 12 HOUR PULSE DIVIDE CRIPPLED TFs CHECKING TF FUEL TF'S RETURN TO PORT Combat Events: NAVAL REACTION PHASE LOADING/UNLOADING TASK FORCES Troops from 1st Sasebo SNLF Coy lost during loading of TF 159 Amphibious TF 319 unloading at Batangas TASK FORCE LOADING/UNLOADING COMPLETE CALCULATING TASK FORCE PATHS MINESWEEPING OPERATIONS NAVAL MOVEMENT PHASE ADJUST SHIP FUEL AIR OPERATIONS PHASE : AM E7K2 Alf sighting report: 3 Allied ships at 111,108 near Truk, speed 10, Moving Northwest E13A1 Jake sighting report: 5 Allied ships at 85,73 near Camiguin, speed 10, Moving Northwest E13A1 Jake sighting report: 5 Allied ships at 52,93 near Billiton , Speed 23 , Moving Southwest E13A1 Jake sighting report: Allied xAP at 48,91 near Palembang , Speed 8 , Moving Southwest E13A1 Jake sighting report: 4 Allied ships at 52,90 near Muntok , Speed 6 , Moving Southeast Ki-21-IIa Sally reports object under water at 85, 83 near Legaspi TF 57 observes Allied Light Bomber at 80,73 near Vigan TF 146 sighted by Allied Aircraft at 80,74 near San Fernando TF 44 followed by Allied Aircraft at 80,68 near Laoag TF 240 shadowed by Allied Recon at 81,79 near Atimonan xAK Yamura Maru observes Allied Light Bomber at 81,72 near Laoag TF 102 shadowed by Allied Fighter at 79,89 near Cagayan TF 13 followed by Allied Aircraft at 83,90 near Siargao Escort of 36 x Ki-43-Ib Oscar from 64th Sentai loses contact with raid, proceeding onto target Singapore AIRCRAFT LANDING SHIP CREWS PERFORM DAMAGE CONTROL DIVIDE CRIPPLED TFs AIR OPERATIONS PHASE : PM H6K4 Mavis sighting report: 3 Allied ships at 72,90 near Tawi Tawi , Speed 2 , Moving Northwest F1M2 Pete sighting report: 6 Allied ships at 82,102 near Morotai, speed 19, Moving Northwest E13A1 Jake reports diving submarine at 82, 104 near Gebe E7K2 Alf sighting report: 2 Allied ships at 78,107 near Kofiau, speed 18, Moving Southeast E14Y1 Glen reports shape below surface at 132, 161 near Suva Ki-21-IIa Sally sighting report: 2 Allied ships at 50,84 near Singapore , Speed 0 , Moving East Ki-48-Ib Lily sighting report: 4 Allied ships at 80,66 near Swatow, speed 12, Moving East TF 117 observes Allied Level Bomber at 57,88 near Sambas TF 44 observes Allied Light Bomber at 80,68 near Laoag TF 240 detected by Allied Fighter at 81,79 near Atimonan TF 120 shadowed by Allied Medium Bomber at 79,83 near Roxas Escort of 31 x Ki-43-Ib Oscar from 64th Sentai loses contact with raid, proceeding onto target Escort of 9 x A5M4 Claude from Yamada Det S-2 loses contact with raid, proceeding onto target 108th RAF AIRCRAFT LANDING AIR TRANSPORT PHASE AIRCRAFT LANDING SHIP CREWS PERFORM DAMAGE CONTROL SURFACE COMBAT CHECK DIVIDE CRIPPLED TFs SHIP CREWS PERFORM DAMAGE CONTROL SHIP CREWS PERFORM DAMAGE CONTROL Amphibious TF 319 unloading at Batangas REPAIRING SHIPS END 12 HOUR PULSE DIVIDE CRIPPLED TFs CHECKING TF FUEL TF'S RETURN TO PORT Japanese forces CAPTURE Kudat !!! Japanese forces CAPTURE Batangas !!! Japanese forces CAPTURE Kwangchowan !!! Japanese forces CAPTURE Alor Star !!! Japanese forces CAPTURE Gorontalo !!! RECALCULATING ZONES OF CONTROL SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS PHASE MOVING OIL AND RESOURCES PRODUCTION PHASE SUPPLY MOVEMENT PHASE CALCULATING SPOILAGE AIRCRAFT REPAIR PHASE AIRCRAFT SUPPLY PHASE UPGRADING SHIPS UPGRADING AIR UNITS UPGRADING LAND UNITS SUPPLY PHASE COMPLETE END OF DAY TRAINING SHIP CREWS ADJUSTING AVIATION SUPPORT LAND UNIT REPLACEMENT PHASE AIR UNIT REPLACEMENT PHASE MERGING SUB UNITS SUB UNIT MERGE COMPLETE DIVIDE CRIPPLED TFs Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Amoy (83, 61)! Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Chefoo (98, 46)! Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Paoting (94, 40)! Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Nakhon Ratchasima (58, 61)! Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Ubon (62, 63)! Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Udon Thani (61, 59)! LEADER REASSIGNMENT PHASE 35th JNAF AF Unit arrives at Tokyo SEARCHING FOR ADJACENT ENEMY UNITS REASSIGNING TRANSPORT GROUPS DISBANDING HUMAN CONTROLLED TASK FORCES Takao Ku K-1 sub-groups COMBINING at Cagayan Tainan Ku S-1 sub-groups COMBINING at Cagayan

castor troy -> RE: hexside control (6/1/2009 4:41:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger Its an unoccupied base, so why shouldnt part of the advancing force be allowed to continue to advance while another part secures the area? I dont see a thing in the world "exploitive" about that. Because your troops are sitting at New York, today you order them to move to Boston and when you order them to move to Washington tomorrow they have already marched 15 miles South... lol, nothing more to say. And that´s no offense Sir... [8\|]

Dili -> RE: hexside control (6/1/2009 4:42:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger I was actually referring to Casters comment [;)] Okay! [:)]

Barb -> RE: hexside control (6/1/2009 6:52:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger Its an unoccupied base, so why shouldnt part of the advancing force be allowed to continue to advance while another part secures the area? I dont see a thing in the world "exploitive" about that. quote: Note: This tactic is only useable by JFBs. AFBs arent allowed. Actually, what you said is right, but what I consider bug is that it is possible for Japan only and allies cant do that (as you said).

String -> RE: hexside control (6/1/2009 8:01:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger Its an unoccupied base, so why shouldnt part of the advancing force be allowed to continue to advance while another part secures the area? I dont see a thing in the world "exploitive" about that. Because your troops are sitting at New York, today you order them to move to Boston and when you order them to move to Washington tomorrow they have already marched 15 miles South... lol, nothing more to say. And that´s no offense Sir... [8\|] What the hell? When three batallions arrive at a town, why can't one of them be tasked with securing the town and the other two continuing on if no enemy is present?

Andy Mac -> RE: hexside control (6/1/2009 8:50:53 PM)
Both sides can do it and the legitimate way of achieving the same result to attack the base with 1 bn and then pursue with the other 2. This is not a bug but a minor interaction issue between new features and old which is relevant in only a few bases - fixing it is more complicated than I first thought as you can do exactly the same thing risk free with attack/pursue it will go on the patch list

Yamato hugger -> RE: hexside control (6/1/2009 9:05:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger Its an unoccupied base, so why shouldnt part of the advancing force be allowed to continue to advance while another part secures the area? I dont see a thing in the world "exploitive" about that. Because your troops are sitting at New York, today you order them to move to Boston and when you order them to move to Washington tomorrow they have already marched 15 miles South... lol, nothing more to say. And that´s no offense Sir... [8\|] Well what you describe would reset their march distance to zero in both AE and WitP. You are trying to take an abstract game and imply that it duplicates the real world. Its a game, and games have limitations. And for the record, after review by the devs it was decided to leave it as it is. What I am doing is really no different than putting my non-attacking units into reserve mode with pursuit set to ON. However, pursuit wont work in an attack where there are no defenders, so this "exploit" as you term it isnt doing anything that would or could be done were there actual defenders in the hex. I see no reason that a force shouldnt be allowed to use the bonus "pursuit" movement just because the other guy pulled his troops out. In effect what you are saying is that a players advance should be SLOWER in areas where there are no defenders than if there were. Which doesnt make sense to me. quote: ORIGINAL: Barb quote: Note: This tactic is only useable by JFBs. AFBs arent allowed. Actually, what you said is right, but what I consider bug is that it is possible for Japan only and allies cant do that (as you said). I didnt say the allied PLAYER couldnt do it, I said AFBs arent ALLOWED to do it [:D]

Flying Tiger -> RE: hexside control (6/2/2009 7:07:30 AM)
Interesting debate. I do not see it as a 'cheat' - but it does frustrate me when the guy who knows all the little 'loopholes' gets an advantage - either include these things as regular features in the game, or get rid of them. But dont leave us needing to read every last AAR just in case a new 'feature' is discovered.

aciddrinker -> RE: Tora, Tora, Tora! (6/2/2009 10:46:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger ... Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Chefoo (98, 46)! Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Nakhon Ratchasima (58, 61)! Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Udon Thani (61, 59)! ... Hmm do the PI and DEI Industrial areas need also have some garrison to avoid damage from partisan attack's ?

Kereguelen -> RE: hexside control (6/2/2009 11:23:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger Interesting debate. I do not see it as a 'cheat' - but it does frustrate me when the guy who knows all the little 'loopholes' gets an advantage - either include these things as regular features in the game, or get rid of them. But dont leave us needing to read every last AAR just in case a new 'feature' is discovered. Well, YH is a tester. Part of his job is to discover loopholes. When he discovers something, the development team decides if he found a 'feature' or a 'bug'[;)]

Yamato hugger -> RE: Tora, Tora, Tora! (6/2/2009 11:44:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: aciddrinker quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger ... Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Chefoo (98, 46)! Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Nakhon Ratchasima (58, 61)! Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Udon Thani (61, 59)! ... Hmm do the PI and DEI Industrial areas need also have some garrison to avoid damage from partisan attack's ? Manila has a garrison of 150. Some of the DEI has garrisons as well. India has LOTS of them. quote: ORIGINAL: Kereguelen quote: ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger Interesting debate. I do not see it as a 'cheat' - but it does frustrate me when the guy who knows all the little 'loopholes' gets an advantage - either include these things as regular features in the game, or get rid of them. But dont leave us needing to read every last AAR just in case a new 'feature' is discovered. Well, YH is a tester. Part of his job is to discover loopholes. When he discovers something, the development team decides if he found a 'feature' or a 'bug'[;)] Which I excel at [:D] If there is a way to break a game, I will find it. I think Don has lost about half his hair just from me trying to explain how I managed to find something that I found so he could duplicate it so someone couldnt come along later and do the same thing. But - I consider myself to be a players player, and part of what I am trying to do here is point out things like this so EVERYONE is aware of them, not just a select few. But I dont talk about some things that I know are exploits that I also know arent going to get fixed.

spence -> RE: hexside control (6/2/2009 11:47:38 AM)
quote: Hmm do the PI and DEI Industrial areas need also have some garrison to avoid damage from partisan attack's ? Since the Japanese are bound to capture these areas in fairly short order it would seem that such damage would actually be advantageous to the Allied Player since the Japanese Player would be obliged to repair them to use them.

bradfordkay -> RE: hexside control (6/3/2009 6:57:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: spence quote: Hmm do the PI and DEI Industrial areas need also have some garrison to avoid damage from partisan attack's ? Since the Japanese are bound to capture these areas in fairly short order it would seem that such damage would actually be advantageous to the Allied Player since the Japanese Player would be obliged to repair them to use them. I thought that he was talking about a need for the Japanese to garrison those bases against guerrilla attacks.

Yamato hugger -> RE: hexside control (6/3/2009 11:25:17 AM)
I was. In India and China both sides are required to garrison to prevent damage, but not so elsewhere.

vettim89 -> RE: hexside control (6/3/2009 12:08:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger Interesting debate. I do not see it as a 'cheat' - but it does frustrate me when the guy who knows all the little 'loopholes' gets an advantage - either include these things as regular features in the game, or get rid of them. But dont leave us needing to read every last AAR just in case a new 'feature' is discovered. I don't know if this is really as big an issue as it is being made. This was a unique situation where the Japanese captured an unocupied base. This isn't the US Army in 2009 this is IJA in 1941. The Japanese didn't stop to make nice with the locals they moved on. If AFB's don't like it here's an idea, don't leave empty bases for the Japanese to push through without a fight.

m10bob -> RE: hexside control (6/3/2009 12:12:56 PM)
Ref the "running out of fuel with barges" issue: Would it be possible to assign some barges for replenishment duty and just have them tag along?

medicff -> RE: hexside control (6/4/2009 2:21:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger Its an unoccupied base, so why shouldnt part of the advancing force be allowed to continue to advance while another part secures the area? I dont see a thing in the world "exploitive" about that. What I am doing is really no different than putting my non-attacking units into reserve mode with pursuit set to ON. However, pursuit wont work in an attack where there are no defenders, so this "exploit" as you term it isnt doing anything that would or could be done were there actual defenders in the hex. I see no reason that a force shouldnt be allowed to use the bonus "pursuit" movement just because the other guy pulled his troops out. In effect what you are saying is that a players advance should be SLOWER in areas where there are no defenders than if there were. Which doesnt make sense to me. Just to be sure. What I am reading here is that this ONLY occurs on an unoccupied base. A base with defenders will not allow this movement unless pursuit mode is selected. Pat

String -> RE: hexside control (6/4/2009 10:54:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: m10bob Ref the "running out of fuel with barges" issue: Would it be possible to assign some barges for replenishment duty and just have them tag along? I think the obvious and historical solution here is not to send barges beyond their range and/or set up small fuel depots along their way.

Mike Scholl -> RE: hexside control (6/4/2009 11:43:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger I was. In India and China both sides are required to garrison to prevent damage, but not so elsewhere. Add Burma to that list.

Yamato hugger -> RE: hexside control (6/4/2009 11:56:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: medicff quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger Its an unoccupied base, so why shouldnt part of the advancing force be allowed to continue to advance while another part secures the area? I dont see a thing in the world "exploitive" about that. What I am doing is really no different than putting my non-attacking units into reserve mode with pursuit set to ON. However, pursuit wont work in an attack where there are no defenders, so this "exploit" as you term it isnt doing anything that would or could be done were there actual defenders in the hex. I see no reason that a force shouldnt be allowed to use the bonus "pursuit" movement just because the other guy pulled his troops out. In effect what you are saying is that a players advance should be SLOWER in areas where there are no defenders than if there were. Which doesnt make sense to me. Just to be sure. What I am reading here is that this ONLY occurs on an unoccupied base. A base with defenders will not allow this movement unless pursuit mode is selected. Pat No, its anytime, but you wont move through an enemy controlled hexside regardless. So if you fail to take the base, the point is kind of moot, no?

Flying Tiger -> RE: hexside control (6/4/2009 2:34:41 PM)
quote: I consider myself to be a players player, and part of what I am trying to do here is point out things like this so EVERYONE is aware of them, not just a select few. But I dont talk about some things that I know are exploits that I also know arent going to get fixed. Thanks YH. Fair comment. Just remind me never to play against a tester though!!

castor troy -> RE: hexside control (6/4/2009 4:08:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger quote: ORIGINAL: medicff quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger Its an unoccupied base, so why shouldnt part of the advancing force be allowed to continue to advance while another part secures the area? I dont see a thing in the world "exploitive" about that. What I am doing is really no different than putting my non-attacking units into reserve mode with pursuit set to ON. However, pursuit wont work in an attack where there are no defenders, so this "exploit" as you term it isnt doing anything that would or could be done were there actual defenders in the hex. I see no reason that a force shouldnt be allowed to use the bonus "pursuit" movement just because the other guy pulled his troops out. In effect what you are saying is that a players advance should be SLOWER in areas where there are no defenders than if there were. Which doesnt make sense to me. Just to be sure. What I am reading here is that this ONLY occurs on an unoccupied base. A base with defenders will not allow this movement unless pursuit mode is selected. Pat No, its anytime, but you wont move through an enemy controlled hexside regardless. So if you fail to take the base, the point is kind of moot, no? while I somewhat understood it at some point that it´s possible in an empty hex (while still being very ABSTRACT) I have no idea how you want to justify this "feature" in an occupied hex. You can´t move through them but in an abstracted way you do that as some of your troops are marching North and when the rest of your troops kick the enemy out of the hex you then order the "magic move" and perhaps your troops marching North have then marched 45 miles South. Boy, oh boy... [:(] So at the same day your attacking troops kick out the enemy your marching North troops did in fact march THROUGH the enemy (if we think the enemy holds in the middle of the hex). Sorry, the miles are wrong though as I was thinking about a 60 mile hex. But it´s nothing different in a 40 miles hex. This "magic move" is just bullocks.

Yamato hugger -> RE: hexside control (6/4/2009 8:14:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: castor troy while I somewhat understood it at some point that it´s possible in an empty hex (while still being very ABSTRACT) I have no idea how you want to justify this "feature" in an occupied hex. You can´t move through them but in an abstracted way you do that as some of your troops are marching North and when the rest of your troops kick the enemy out of the hex you then order the "magic move" and perhaps your troops marching North have then marched 45 miles South. Boy, oh boy... [:(] So at the same day your attacking troops kick out the enemy your marching North troops did in fact march THROUGH the enemy (if we think the enemy holds in the middle of the hex). Sorry, the miles are wrong though as I was thinking about a 60 mile hex. But it´s nothing different in a 40 miles hex. This "magic move" is just bullocks. Quite easy to justify really. 46 mile hex. How much terrain does a - pick a unit - airbase company? They are going to freeze ANY movement "past" them? Lets say a division. A division on the defense covers an area about 3 miles wide if deployed in an open formation. Artillery support out to maybe 10 miles. Leaves plenty of room for maneuver, not to mention the minor fact that the guy doing the maneuvering still has to have enough force to kick that division out of the hex. So if the moving player has enough force to move the defender then likely the defender has enough to do without worrying about the unit that didnt bother to stop. His arty would be firing FPLs and interdiction fire (if even the maneuvering unit was even in range) would be out of the question. Like I said, in that regard it is no different than pursuit other than instead of chasing the retreating units you go in the direction that you want to go. Actually whether you like it or not doesnt really matter. It has been reviewed and this is the way its going to stay. It isnt even on the pile of stuff to consider for the first patch. Edit: and 1 other thing. Its a GAME. It has limitations. There is a lot about AE that people arent going to like. I dare say no one will be 100% happy with it. But then, name any game that can claim that everyone is 100% happy with.

Kwik E Mart -> RE: hexside control (6/4/2009 8:33:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger Edit: and 1 other thing. Its a GAME. It has limitations. There is a lot about AE that people arent going to like. I dare say no one will be 100% happy with it. But then, name any game that can claim that everyone is 100% happy with. I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about strip poker.... [;)]

PeteG662 -> RE: hexside control (6/4/2009 8:38:40 PM)
Some prudish women would complain about it!

Dili -> RE: hexside control (6/4/2009 8:42:48 PM)
It is only gamey if the hex is full of big enemy units. The ideal was to have an hex ownership that wasn't ON or OFF but progressive and the mobility of the terrain. The contrary is also gamey, the defender to put a Regiment or a Division in a 40miles hex and claim that it stops every infiltration, IRL it should even be possible bypass the unit and in game to advance to another Hex but it is impossible. the only exception would be in Alpine terrain. Since if the hex is full of enemy units we will need ours too to combat them then i think the way it is, is the less worse.

Page: << < prev 10 11 [12] 13 14 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.71875