Malaria (Full Version)

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



Message

tacfire -> Malaria (8/30/2009 6:06:24 PM)

How long does it take for malaria effects to start impacting ground units?

In my current game, I have a bunch of Japanese ground units (outside of town) in the jungles of Burma in combat mode for almost one full month now, and they all still look pretty healthy to me: Moral=99%; Disruption=0%; Fatigue=3%



herwin -> RE: Malaria (8/30/2009 7:37:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tacfire

How long does it take for malaria effects to start impacting ground units?

In my current game, I have a bunch of Japanese ground units (outside of town) in the jungles of Burma in combat mode for almost one full month now, and they all still look pretty healthy to me: Moral=99%; Disruption=0%; Fatigue=3%


Bump.



jimh009 -> RE: Malaria (8/30/2009 7:40:28 PM)

I was wondering the same thing the other day. The Brits have been in the jungles around Imphal for months...yet they show no effects of Malaria, either. Ditto for US troops on Lunga and Luganville. Granted, stock WiTP seemed a "bit harsh" when it came to calculating Malaria. However, in AE there doesn't seem to be any effect at all, which isn't right either.



tacfire -> RE: Malaria (8/31/2009 1:38:24 PM)

I now have my forces in the jungles of Burma for almost 40 days now and they are all still perfectly healthy.
Are the malarial effects suppose to take this long? or is malaria a seasonal thing? or is this a bug?
Does anyone know?



Chad Harrison -> RE: Malaria (8/31/2009 2:09:54 PM)

We had an extensive conversation about the affects of Malaria years ago. The link to the thread is below:

Malaria and Morale Thread

There were some issues with it in vanilla WitP. I felt like it was not working as designed. Interested to see how AE is intended to work.



Hanzberger -> RE: Malaria (8/31/2009 2:42:24 PM)

I always thought it was a bug in the vanilla version. How does it work in AE? Maybe they just got rid of it.



herwin -> RE: Malaria (8/31/2009 2:54:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Hanzberger

I always thought it was a bug in the vanilla version. How does it work in AE? Maybe they just got rid of it.


I've found that my troops don't need to be resting to avoid malaria at Lunga. Apparently all they need is for the Japanese to be elsewhere.



Sardaukar -> RE: Malaria (8/31/2009 3:31:54 PM)

I have found no effects of malaria in my AE games. Might be a bug.

One needs to read "Touched by Fire" and "Fire in the sky"..they explain why malaria was MAJOR factor.



Lomri -> RE: Malaria (8/31/2009 3:56:03 PM)


And I imagine "Malaria zones" also include the other nasty things like dengue fever and all that.

In stock WitP non-malaria bases were worth their weight in gold. If malaria is toned down that you can rest down to 0 fatigue everywhere, it sure shifts the map a lot! Won't need to be sending troops back to non-malaria zones to rest up as much.



Cribtop -> RE: Malaria (9/1/2009 3:41:53 AM)

I've also seen an utter lack of malaria-related fatigue (though it does seem to take longer to recover disabled squads in malaria zones). While I agree the WiTP effects seemed "too much" the AE effects, at least so far, seem "too little."



medicff -> RE: Malaria (9/1/2009 4:28:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

I've also seen an utter lack of malaria-related fatigue (though it does seem to take longer to recover disabled squads in malaria zones). While I agree the WiTP effects seemed "too much" the AE effects, at least so far, seem "too little."



Just check Java to see that non-contested area has trouble recovering disabled squads. Those in Batavia and Malang recover well before the japs show up, other areas of Java your hard pressed even with rest to recover many disabled squads.




Blind Sniper -> RE: Malaria (9/4/2009 3:47:11 PM)

quote:

I have found no effects of malaria in my AE games. Might be a bug.


I sent Horii group at PM to see how the malaria works, all units are in good form.
I do not remember exactly how many days the Japs stay there but they should be 15 or so.



[image]local://upfiles/29878/350F5448F8234EB5B58FDEE368922FCF.jpg[/image]



TulliusDetritus -> RE: Malaria (9/4/2009 6:29:34 PM)

I too am surprised with the new malaria (and fatigue) model. Used to WitP, high levels of fatigue (and disruption) and malaria were the common rule. But in AE I see what the other players say. I even forced a couple of Chinese divisions to march from China to Burma. Fatigue level when they arrived at Mandalay = 0 [X(]



Montbrun -> RE: Malaria (9/4/2009 7:52:23 PM)

Yes, malaria, and other diseases present in tropical zones was a major factor, but, IMHO, the presence of a Corps-level sized HQ or higher, should dramatically reduce the effects of malaria. The US Army and Navy made huge efforts to manage the problem, even going so far as to employ obsolete aircraft to spray DDT on Guadalcanal (which was eventually an R&R camp), and at other bases.



Blind Sniper -> RE: Malaria (9/4/2009 8:38:52 PM)

quote:

IMHO, the presence of a Corps-level sized HQ or higher, should dramatically reduce the effects of malaria.


I agree, but I think these units are too healthy.
Anyhow in each other base my troops do not suffer desease.



Chickenboy -> RE: Malaria (9/5/2009 2:57:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Blind Sniper

quote:

IMHO, the presence of a Corps-level sized HQ or higher, should dramatically reduce the effects of malaria.


I agree, but I think these units are too healthy.
Anyhow in each other base my troops do not suffer desease.

Agreed. IRL malaria was a major factor in sapping unit strength over time. More ground troops were medical evacuations due to this than were combat wounded. It hit the allies hard, but the Japanese even harder. As Sardaukar said, the effect of malaria (substantial) on combat ability and unit cohesiveness was well described in "Touched by Fire" and "Fire in the Sky".

It's too bad that it's not reflected in the game. Count me as a cheerleader for the critters. Up with Plasmodium spp.!



BigJ62 -> RE: Malaria (9/5/2009 8:43:13 AM)

Careful what you wish for.



Sardaukar -> RE: Malaria (9/5/2009 8:47:26 AM)

I think every unit in malaria zone should have either fatigue at least 20, or 20% disabled. Or both, since that'd resemble portion of personnel sick with different diseases constantly. Fatigue would resemble the effect to unit efficiency. This could maybe, like in WitP, reduced by airfield/port size and presence of HQ. 



Sardaukar -> RE: Malaria (9/5/2009 8:49:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

Careful what you wish for.


Well, in WitP, malaria was real killer and bit too much. Now it might be too little. I do not want to go back to WitP where you basically never recovered, though.

But small "tuning up" might be good.



castor troy -> RE: Malaria (9/5/2009 9:44:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cribtop

I've also seen an utter lack of malaria-related fatigue (though it does seem to take longer to recover disabled squads in malaria zones). While I agree the WiTP effects seemed "too much" the AE effects, at least so far, seem "too little."



never seen too much effect of malaria in WITP. You can have your troops in a malaria zone for years and wonīt suffer more than 15% - 20 % disabled squads. This without any support units, with support units you can keep your inf units in the 95% readiness state. Thatīs far better than what RL was about. if this was toned down in AE even more then this is not correct if you want to have it more realistically.



Blind Sniper -> RE: Malaria (9/5/2009 12:25:06 PM)

quote:

Careful what you wish for.


I believe to know what you mean, would be necessary to start a units turnover, found "rest base" for them, more planning (and so on) that would add more micromanagement in the game.

I'm just wondering why a game so detailed does not take into account the deseases for the ground units.
It is not a claim, it is a question [:)]



BigJ62 -> RE: Malaria (9/5/2009 1:03:08 PM)

Because there was ungodly amount of complaints the way it was before and even through our own testing so...



Sardaukar -> RE: Malaria (9/5/2009 1:43:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

Because there was ungodly amount of complaints the way it was before and even through our own testing so...


It's not on/off-switch, I hope? [8D] I suggest 20% cap for malaria effects. That is still lot, but minor compared to WitP.



Chickenboy -> RE: Malaria (9/5/2009 2:44:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I think every unit in malaria zone should have either fatigue at least 20, or 20% disabled. Or both, since that'd resemble portion of personnel sick with different diseases constantly. Fatigue would resemble the effect to unit efficiency. This could maybe, like in WitP, reduced by airfield/port size and presence of HQ. 

Actually, in WiTP the original design was to have malaria reduced by airfield / port size or presence of HQ. In reality, it didn't matter. The only real prevention of malaria was to not be in a malarial hex, regardless of base size.

If the absolute lack of malarial effect was fixed in AE, I'd be fine with malaria being treated the way it was in WiTP, with the added benefit of the never-implemented base size reduction.

@BigJ62: Thanks for the warning. I'm looking for realism in this wargame. Malaria was an important aspect of the way the war was waged. Some areas were bypassed entirely (!) due to particularly nasty forms of malaria, regardless of their 'build potential'. I'm looking for this realism to be reinstated- a fact of life-just as it was in WiTP.



Sardaukar -> RE: Malaria (9/5/2009 3:35:06 PM)

I don't want to ruin the game, that's my concern. Units were not rendered combat-inefficient by malaria, it just had quite an effect on any unit within malarial area.

In perfect world, we'd have checks in code like (ideas in italics are mine):

If in Malarial zone, add % chance for fatigue (per week for unit maybe?) (with max cap how high it can get from malaria only)
If in Malarial zone, add % chance of disabled squads per day (again with max cap, I think max 20% of unit disabled from malaria only would be OK)

This could be offset by having excess support squads, within HQ range or by base size. And by admin skill checks. Similarly, having less than required support squads should have detrimental effect on checks.

What do you think?

I am not in favour of bringing back draconian effects from WitP, but there should be some middle way. 






Chickenboy -> RE: Malaria (9/5/2009 3:42:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sardaukar

I don't want to ruin the game, that's my concern. Units were not rendered combat-inefficient by malaria, it just had quite an effect on any unit within malarial area.

In perfect world, we'd have checks in code like:

If in Malarial zone, add % chance for fatigue (per week for unit maybe?) (with max cap how high it can get from malaria only)
If in Malarial zone, add % chance of disabled squads per day (again with max cap, I think max 20% of unit disabled from malaria only would be OK)

This could be offset by having excess support squads, with or within HQ range or by base size. And by admin skill checks. Similarly, having less than required suppoert squads, should have detrimental effect on checks.

What do you think?

I am not in favour of bringing back draconian effects from WitP, but there should be some middle way. 





I'd be OK with something like this.

The specifics (what % disabling effect malaria / tropical diseases provided) are less important to me than the idea that it should be there in some capacity. I disagree with the 'within HQ range' reduction, however. Having Percival within 9 hexes doesn't matter when you've got mosquitos crawling all over you, depositing Plasmodium sporozoites into your bloodstream.



Chad Harrison -> RE: Malaria (9/5/2009 6:14:48 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BigJ62

Because there was ungodly amount of complaints the way it was before and even through our own testing so...


If your out in the middle of the jungle, it needs to be severe.

If your sitting in Rabual or Port Moresby, not fighting, not doing anything else, and the bases are fully built out, it should be nearly non-existant.

I always like the whole 'combined size of bases over 10 = no malaria' rule that we all thought was true in vanilla WitP.



Blind Sniper -> RE: Malaria (9/5/2009 6:26:44 PM)

quote:

Because there was ungodly amount of complaints the way it was before and even through our own testing so...


Thanks for your answer.

quote:

It's not on/off-switch, I hope?


Me too!



Pascal_slith -> RE: Malaria (9/5/2009 6:31:15 PM)

As this malaria and other issues become major discussion points, perhaps it would be nice if the Forum manager would set up a sticky FAQ where ONLY WitP designers address these in a more extensive format.



sfbaytf -> RE: Malaria (9/5/2009 6:36:26 PM)

Maybe its time for a rule whereby units posted in places like the US West Coast, Hawaii, OZ for extended periods suffer the dreaded VD effect.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.935547