Why all of the off map areas? (Full Version)

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



Message

pad152 -> Why all of the off map areas? (6/14/2009 8:23:33 PM)

I played the CHS mod for WITP, and off map area for British forces coming into India made sense but, Panama didn't! I mean just have stuff show up on the west cost of the US/Canada a week later.

In the AE manual I see off map areas for the Soviet Union, Eastern Canada, Eastern US, Monbasa, Cap Town, Port Stanley, plus others. I just don't see the reason for most of these and forcing the player to moving troops, ships, supplies, etc. not only across the pacific but, also move them to/from all these other off map places seems like a bit. What the pacific map wasn't big enough, there wasn't enough already for the player to do? What is the purpose of these? What does this add to the game other than waste player time?



Terminus -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/14/2009 8:24:40 PM)

To help slow things down. WitP has always been too fast.



pad152 -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/14/2009 8:29:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

To help slow things down. WitP has always been too fast.


Slowing the tempo of operations and wasting the players time isn't the same thing!



madflava13 -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/14/2009 8:32:23 PM)

Doesn't seem like a waste to me... I am looking forward to utilizing off-map areas for training, ship repair, etc...



Andy Mac -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/14/2009 8:35:30 PM)

There are other reasons as well

Falklands are ony there to provide a refuelling point for units moving via the Atlantic
Mombasa to give the arrival point for East and West African units and to give a base connected to Capetown that is not cut off until the Med opens i.e. a closer rally point than Capetown
Soviet to give an off map secure supply point for the Soviets
Aden and Abadan reinforcement and fuel point for ME respectivelly
Capetown as main supply point for West until Med opens and major of map Shipyard (durban and simonstown repair yards)
USA and Canada box to provide off map shipyards and reinforcement points
Panama Canal major fuel arrival point for Venezualan convoys and arrival point for a lot of US naval forces

So they all have reasons some folks will agree with them other not




Terminus -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/14/2009 8:36:30 PM)

All part of the package...



pad152 -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/14/2009 8:58:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Andy Mac

There are other reasons as well

Falklands are ony there to provide a refuelling point for units moving via the Atlantic
Mombasa to give the arrival point for East and West African units and to give a base connected to Capetown that is not cut off until the Med opens i.e. a closer rally point than Capetown
Soviet to give an off map secure supply point for the Soviets
Aden and Abadan reinforcement and fuel point for ME respectivelly
Capetown as main supply point for West until Med opens and major of map Shipyard (durban and simonstown repair yards)
USA and Canada box to provide off map shipyards and reinforcement points
Panama Canal major fuel arrival point for Venezualan convoys and arrival point for a lot of US naval forces

So they all have reasons some folks will agree with them other not



I though I was playing War in the Pacific, Not War in the Falklands, War in African or War in the Med(this is not my idea of War in the Med anyway [8|]). The player now has to worry about refueling ships in the Atlantic and the Med, are you kidding?

Do auto convoys (AI control) even work for moving stuff between these areas?



ny59giants -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/14/2009 9:02:16 PM)

Japanese players could use the map edges with the stock map and even Andrew's extended map to isolate Australia. Capture of Exmouth (Australia) and then either NZ or the Society Islands would make this happen. Many Allied players have lost shipping due to the restrictions of the current map edges. IMO, this will take away those possibilities and make for a more balanced game.   



m10bob -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/14/2009 9:02:16 PM)

Some of us feel those "off map" places were mandatory for historic reasons.
At least 2 American divisions staged from Panama and never set foot anywhere near the west coast of CONUS.



pad152 -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/14/2009 9:07:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Some of us feel those "off map" places were mandatory for historic reasons.
At least 2 American divisions staged from Panama and never set foot anywhere near the west coast of CONUS.


If Panama can't be attacked by the Japanese it has no effect on the game, you might as well place troops on the moon.




Fishbed -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/14/2009 9:12:41 PM)

Man, what's the fuss about? First time I hear about a WITPer complaining about having too much... stuff?!

You had a bad day or what? Everyone thinks this makes the game richer, as an allied player you just have the same units, but this time at least you can deal with them sending them across the map without having to worry about a Japanese interception, send your assets where you need them... You don't need to involve yourself more than you'd do without them, and still you have access to dozens of new possibilities... Is that because they're nothing left to complain about that I see to see such pain ni the a** threads all over there or what?



Don Bowen -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/14/2009 9:20:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
... you might as well place troops on the moon ...


Naw - those moonie divisions have a very poor combat record.



rogueusmc -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/14/2009 9:32:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Japanese players could use the map edges with the stock map and even Andrew's extended map to isolate Australia. Capture of Exmouth (Australia) and then either NZ or the Society Islands would make this happen. Many Allied players have lost shipping due to the restrictions of the current map edges. IMO, this will take away those possibilities and make for a more balanced game.   

The off map areas doesn't rid us of the map edge problem...just narrows it down. It works both ways though...allows your opponents to set ambushes in select locations but allows you to patrol those same concentrated areas. Just my two cents...



Fishbed -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/14/2009 9:35:28 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Japanese players could use the map edges with the stock map and even Andrew's extended map to isolate Australia. Capture of Exmouth (Australia) and then either NZ or the Society Islands would make this happen. Many Allied players have lost shipping due to the restrictions of the current map edges. IMO, this will take away those possibilities and make for a more balanced game.   

The off map areas doesn't rid us of the map edge problem...just narrows it down. It works both ways though...allows your opponents to set ambushes in select locations but allows you to patrol those same concentrated areas. Just my two cents...


Well Japan can't be everywhere. KB can lurk in the Indian Ocean forever, and even then it means it is not somewhere else. Submarines will patrol, and well it will exactly look like what they did historically in the first place. IJN fanboys will tell you they can't assault Madagascar with their brand new SSX like their historical counterparts did. I think we can handle that.



pad152 -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/14/2009 9:48:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Man, what's the fuss about? First time I hear about a WITPer complaining about having too much... stuff?!

You had a bad day or what? Everyone thinks this makes the game richer, as an allied player you just have the same units, but this time at least you can deal with them sending them across the map without having to worry about a Japanese interception, send your assets where you need them... You don't need to involve yourself more than you'd do without them, and still you have access to dozens of new possibilities... Is that because they're nothing left to complain about that I see to see such pain ni the a** threads all over there or what?



The focus of the game should be on planing and conducting combat operations in the Pacific without having to worry about stuff in the Atlantic or anywhere else.



Andy Mac -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/14/2009 10:00:46 PM)

I think you are over estimating the impact of these boxes their primary purpose is off map shipyards, supply generations and troop arrival points and they therefore allow you the player to determine the priorities for you shipping - do you want to divert ships to ahistoric amphib ops well you can but your logistics pipeline will suffer



SuluSea -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/14/2009 10:08:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

The focus of the game should be on planing and conducting combat operations in the Pacific without having to worry about stuff in the Atlantic or anywhere else.


That is STILL the focus of the game. The US had shipyards on the east coast for vessels that were able to sail to the east coast ports and the allied player should have that option if they chose to utilize it.
Japan gets enough what ifs in this game , the east coast port option isn't a what if of WW2 but a reality. Sorry , but you're off base.



TalonCG2 -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/14/2009 10:23:50 PM)

Hmm, what was this conflict called again??? Oh yeah! World War II! Guess what, the entire world was involved!

This only adds realism and extra options IMO. Good on the developers for doing it this way.

If you don't like it, don't buy it!
[8|]



sven6345789 -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/14/2009 10:26:59 PM)

i am happy the off map boxes are in; on the CHS map the Aden box gave the british a safe place and an ultimate supply source from where he could return. Panama gave the american some feeling of fighting a two ocean war. you needed to organize your forces and devote transports to them. i like that.

btw, aren't there some scheduled convoys coming into capetown and other cities from time to time? thought i saw a screenshot a few months ago showing such a convoy (turned into a base force or something like that after unloading, but i am not sure).
Do the u-boats make trouble? (like getting a small chance of system damage while on the way to britain? Not that i want it in, but would be interesting.
Is my guess correct that major british warships released for the pacific become available in Great Britain at the time released historically?



Andy Mac -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/14/2009 10:55:45 PM)

ps 30 minutes with the editor and you can move everything that arrives there to arrive on map I would strongly recoommend removing about 40% of the allied shipping if you do btut thats your choice



jwilkerson -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/14/2009 10:59:53 PM)

When I was testing with the Allies, the most useful thing about the offmap areas was being about to move stuff between them. No more convoys through the Tasmanian Sea as the only way to send US planes to CBI. Just move them to a US off map port and then move them directly to Capetown or Aden - then pick them up and move them where you want them. Saves a lot of time and hassel.




Andrew Brown -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/15/2009 12:07:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

I played the CHS mod for WITP, and off map area for British forces coming into India made sense but, Panama didn't! I mean just have stuff show up on the west cost of the US/Canada a week later.

In the AE manual I see off map areas for the Soviet Union, Eastern Canada, Eastern US, Monbasa, Cap Town, Port Stanley, plus others. I just don't see the reason for most of these and forcing the player to moving troops, ships, supplies, etc. not only across the pacific but, also move them to/from all these other off map places seems like a bit. What the pacific map wasn't big enough, there wasn't enough already for the player to do? What is the purpose of these? What does this add to the game other than waste player time?



Andy mac has already given a lot of answers, but one of the main reasons for having the off-map bases is to provide a flexible way for the Allies to move forces between theatres (e.g. to/from the CBI, from other areas of the map) just as they had in Real Life. Firstly, movement "off" the map is done via the actual map edges, not bases near the map edges. This is more realistic. To provide the flexibility, there are off-map bases that are relatively close to each of the separate map edges. So TFs can move to these "nearby" off-map bases, then be moved to any one of the other map edges (via their "nearby" off-map bases) as the Allied player wishes.

For example, if the Allies wish to move ships to the US East coast for repair, then move them back to the map, then they can choose to send the TF to the US West Coast via Panama, then the Western map edge, or to the CBI via Cape Town, then the Eastern map edge. The existence of the Panama bases and the Cape Town base, apart from the reasons Andy Mac has given, also allow direct transfer between them, instead of having to travel to/from the US East coast. So that is another aspect of the flexibility. None of this flexibility would be possible if there were only, say, a US East coast base, and not the other ones.

I hope that makes some sort of sense?

Andrew



Rob322 -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/15/2009 12:10:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

When I was testing with the Allies, the most useful thing about the offmap areas was being about to move stuff between them. No more convoys through the Tasmanian Sea as the only way to send US planes to CBI. Just move them to a US off map port and then move them directly to Capetown or Aden - then pick them up and move them where you want them. Saves a lot of time and hassel.




I like that idea right there. It always felt both fast and gamey (even though it was working as intended) when you had a LCU in the US and you changed it's HQ to Southeast Asia and the unit reappeared in Karachi 60 days later.

Besides, if you want to get down to it, this game is already ludicrously detailed as it is, a little more honestly isn't going to harm much IMO. The player has always had more direct control over the decisions of all the various elements of the war than ANY of the commanders (up to and including the politicians) ever had.



Andrew Brown -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/15/2009 12:11:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
The player now has to worry about refueling ships in the Atlantic and the Med, are you kidding?


You don't need to worry about refuelling ships moving between off-map bases. Ships get to do this without using up fuel (they are considered to be refuelling from sources that are not otherwise represented in the game, and besides, it would otherwise be a hassle as you suggest). Ships DO use fuel moving on or off the map though, so they won't appear at a map edge fully fuelled.

quote:

Do auto convoys (AI control) even work for moving stuff between these areas?



Yes, at least for moving to/from the map itself. I don't know why anyone would want to set up an auto convoy between two off-map bases. Most of them generate their own supplies.

Andrew



Andrew Brown -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/15/2009 12:13:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ny59giants

Japanese players could use the map edges with the stock map and even Andrew's extended map to isolate Australia. Capture of Exmouth (Australia) and then either NZ or the Society Islands would make this happen. Many Allied players have lost shipping due to the restrictions of the current map edges. IMO, this will take away those possibilities and make for a more balanced game.   


Yes, that was one of the considerations. This was especially true for the Indian Ocean. The off-map movement system removes this "map edge" problem (although the larger map helps as well).

Andrew



Andrew Brown -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/15/2009 12:16:34 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc
The off map areas doesn't rid us of the map edge problem...just narrows it down. It works both ways though...allows your opponents to set ambushes in select locations but allows you to patrol those same concentrated areas. Just my two cents...


To minimise this as much as possible, we don't use the same system that was used for the CHS map. The map edge zones for allowing ships to move to/from the map cover almost the entire map edge. There are no "channels" that connect to the map, allowing Japanese TFs to lurk near the channel entrances. To ambush moves from off-map, the Japanese TFs would have to cover pretty much the entire map edge.

Andrew



Andrew Brown -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/15/2009 12:25:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: sven6345789
btw, aren't there some scheduled convoys coming into capetown and other cities from time to time? thought i saw a screenshot a few months ago showing such a convoy (turned into a base force or something like that after unloading, but i am not sure).


Yes there are. The reason we added "convoys" was to have a way to add supplies to the off-map bases in an irregular way. Having a constant amount of supplies added every day (using a Daily Supply value for the base) doesn't allow for the possibility of having a small flow of supplies early in the war, and a large flow later.

quote:

Do the u-boats make trouble? (like getting a small chance of system damage while on the way to britain? Not that i want it in, but would be interesting.


I don't think so, although I would have to get the Navy team to answer. There may be a small chance of damage when travelling off-map.

I wanted to add the U-boats themselves - not off-map, but the ones that were operating in the Pacific ocean. But I was outvoted on that one [:)]

quote:

Is my guess correct that major british warships released for the pacific become available in Great Britain at the time released historically?


Not really. Most will appear in Cape Town (or later, Aden) as it is assumed that they will be going to the Indian Ocean, and this removes one off-map move for each ship. If players really want to send them to the Pacific instead, then they can always move them to Panama from these entry points.

The main reason for having the UK base is to provide some shipyard capability for the British. It is not useful as a staging base or supply source. It won't be used much in the game.

Andrew



Fallschirmjager -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/15/2009 12:37:16 AM)

How many of these new bases get automatic supplies of supplies and fuel each turn?



Andrew Brown -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/15/2009 12:42:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Fallschirmjager

How many of these new bases get automatic supplies of supplies and fuel each turn?


All of them in varying amounts, except for Port Stanley (Falklands). The only reason Port Stanley is there is to help with movement to/from the South Pacific (via Cape Horn). There is no real reason for the Allies to use that route, but it is there in case they really want to use it.

Andrew



TheTomDude -> RE: Why all of the off map areas? (6/15/2009 12:43:44 AM)

So the allied AI will use the "off-map-zones" to send it's ships and/or troops the other way around the globe? I.e. US troops/ships to India or British troops/ships to the Aleutians?



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.46875