RE: A Long standing Situation (Full Version)

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



Message

Prydwen -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/26/2010 1:43:51 AM)

It took me exactly 17 seconds after opening the PDF version of the manual to do a Full Reader Search for "20,000" and find this rule in Section 16.2, Air Units, on page 255.

What was the problem again?

Maybe because a newcomer wouldn't know to search for 20,000 and if they did know they would have no reason to search for 20,000.

ItsAMadhouse



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/26/2010 2:27:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wwengr

As a Licensed Professional Engineer and a business executive with an MBA, I wholeheartedly endorse Bullwinkle58's view of the philosophers approach. Another way to look at it is that WITP AE has a never ending supply of Easter Eggs!

Don't worry, be happy!


I have one of those two pieces of paper as well, but as an undergrad I was not unknown about the Philosophy Dept.[:)]

Some people will always want to control this beast down to the last washer and cotter pin, but it just can't be. You have to react to what you get handed, every turn. That demon is a heartless SOB!



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/26/2010 2:27:56 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ItsAMadhouse

It took me exactly 17 seconds after opening the PDF version of the manual to do a Full Reader Search for "20,000" and find this rule in Section 16.2, Air Units, on page 255.

What was the problem again?

Maybe because a newcomer wouldn't know to search for 20,000 and if they did know they would have no reason to search for 20,000.

ItsAMadhouse



The point is not the PDF search. The point is RTFM.



pompack -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/26/2010 3:07:18 AM)

Peace brothers! [:D]

1. I have to admit that I have posted about pages 255-257 four times now in response to questions by newcomers who were overwhelmed by the manual. I also have to admit that I have posted RTFM at least that many times in response to experienced people who were complaining that it was not in the manual [:-]

2. In a more philosophical vein (or is it vane?[:D]), I find that playing the game without trying to refererence the 10,000 rules and 20,000 exceptions is quite satisfying. For example when I decide to evacuate some poor beleagered souls by sub, I don't have a clue how many I can transport in any given sub. However I know that it is not many and I know that the conditions in a sub are crowded to start with so the passengers are going to be a bit disorganized when they disembark. So I send a sub and hope for the best.

3. As for the Wiki: GREAT IDEA! I will certainly visit it often an pick up the jewels that are scattered about. What? ... I don't have TIME to CONTRIBUTE! I'm busy playing the game [:D]



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/26/2010 3:11:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

Peace brothers! [:D]

1. I have to admit that I have posted about pages 255-257 four times now in response to questions by newcomers who were overwhelmed by the manual. I also have to admit that I have posted RTFM at least that many times in response to experienced people who were complaining that it was not in the manual [:-]


Yes, if everyone would Read The Fine Manual, all would be well.[:)]



freeboy -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/26/2010 5:35:16 AM)

why no suplies for my ships carrting air groups fro mthe west coat to pearl? seems wastefull to not load supplies on these ships ?



erstad -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/26/2010 6:01:04 AM)

<Never mind, overly redundant post>



MikeS4269 -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/26/2010 7:06:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ItsAMadhouse

It took me exactly 17 seconds after opening the PDF version of the manual to do a Full Reader Search for "20,000" and find this rule in Section 16.2, Air Units, on page 255.

What was the problem again?

Maybe because a newcomer wouldn't know to search for 20,000 and if they did know they would have no reason to search for 20,000.

ItsAMadhouse



I think ItsAMadhouse hit it on the head with this one.

I, as that newcomer, simply dove into a PBEM game after giving the key sections of the rules a once over. We even dubbed this first game "our training game".

I have about 30-40 minutes of time to give WitP AE a day. I get home, often tired, and I can feel my WitP senses tingling in the back of my mind. (aka, turn waiting for me)

After a nappy change on the daughter, a check in with the wife, and a mountain of work to place next to the PC, I load up a turn and spend the next good part of an hour going through things in the game. This usually means just setting my orders for the next two day cycle. If something is unclear or uncertain, I reference the rules, but for the most part, I play and learn by doing.

Which is when the force pool thing came up. After a month or two of playing, I realized that I never seemed to be able to get planes from the pool. I assumed (poorly) it was a GC scenario thing. I talked to my opponent, a guy who makes Advanced Squad Leader look easy to play, and he had no idea either.

We both did searches on "pool" and "replacements" and similar words. We both read the entire air units section. It never dawned on us to look for "20,000" or anything close to that. After about 20 minutes of searching, I did a forum search, and again, I came up empty.

It wasn't until I got a reply back that it became clear why I wasn't getting the planes.

Not linking a need for 20,000 supplies to plane replacement pools, I never even thought to scan that logistics section deep in the .pdf.

Yes, I know, it is my game-sworn duty to read the whole rulebook with a fine toothed comb. In fact, I nibble at it a little bit each day.

I think some of us (many of us?) take the 'play and learn' approach where we read the rules slowly while playing a game at the same time. I dream of a day where it all comes second nature to me. One of the beauties of the game is that, on the surface, the interfaces make it seem relatively straight forward. If you have read a lot of the history, you basically knows what needs to be done, and you can work your way though it like the commanders did.

It's just when the nuts-n-bolts come up (like the 20,000k requirement) that it can de-rail you for a bit until you find it.

I'm glad we have the forums to point us in the right direction, even if the answer it directly under our noses.

See! [:)] I just spent my allocated WitP time just going through the forums!

"I only regret I have but one life to give for this game!"

-Lb



treespider -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/26/2010 11:12:35 AM)

So I guess in your search for "Replacements" you entirely overlooked the section entitled - 16.0 Reinforcements and Replacements that starts on page 254...[;)]




MikeS4269 -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/26/2010 11:58:02 AM)

Ummm......[X(]

Did I mention a newborn deprives one of more than just sleep?

I shall return in two weeks when I've read the thing twice over from cover to cover......

I shall punish myself by flying on one of my own Betty missions. Those poor fellas over GC..........

-Lb

(Ironically, as I type this, the two week old lights off again with her wail of lament. She must be thinking of those Betty pilots too........)



witpqs -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/26/2010 6:01:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

So I guess in your search for "Replacements" you entirely overlooked the section entitled - 16.0 Reinforcements and Replacements that starts on page 254...[;)]


Of course you are right, and still the player (aka User of the manual) gave it a sincere try and came up empty. I think a valid take-away from this (reinforced by my own experience over the years) is that a better arrangement would be that a player could find everything about air units in the air units section, including what's required to upgrade them, obtain replacements, etc. This is not any kind of slam at how the manual is arranged now (it's a good manual and an accomplishment by the team), it's just a consequence of the way people who don't know something go about looking for that something.



Moss Orleni -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/26/2010 7:40:30 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Like for me, to learn how to fight carrier battles - I built a sand box - and ran literally hundreds of test battles. This was how I learned the "defensive split" tactic really works well (too well?) in WITP. But then I was able to teach this to my opponents so they wouldn't keep losing all their carriers!


Out of sheer curiosity (and because it sounds a bit like the Crane Kick from Karate Kid [:)]):

what is the "defensive split" tactic?

Cheers,

Moss



treespider -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/26/2010 7:48:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

So I guess in your search for "Replacements" you entirely overlooked the section entitled - 16.0 Reinforcements and Replacements that starts on page 254...[;)]


Of course you are right, and still the player (aka User of the manual) gave it a sincere try and came up empty. I think a valid take-away from this (reinforced by my own experience over the years) is that a better arrangement would be that a player could find everything about air units in the air units section, including what's required to upgrade them, obtain replacements, etc. This is not any kind of slam at how the manual is arranged now (it's a good manual and an accomplishment by the team), it's just a consequence of the way people who don't know something go about looking for that something.




And just as soon as the Replacement rules were spread out amongst the various Air, Ground, Naval subsections...someone would invariably complain that they could not find the section in the rule book that discussed Replacements.[;)]



witpqs -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/26/2010 8:27:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

So I guess in your search for "Replacements" you entirely overlooked the section entitled - 16.0 Reinforcements and Replacements that starts on page 254...[;)]


Of course you are right, and still the player (aka User of the manual) gave it a sincere try and came up empty. I think a valid take-away from this (reinforced by my own experience over the years) is that a better arrangement would be that a player could find everything about air units in the air units section, including what's required to upgrade them, obtain replacements, etc. This is not any kind of slam at how the manual is arranged now (it's a good manual and an accomplishment by the team), it's just a consequence of the way people who don't know something go about looking for that something.




And just as soon as the Replacement rules were spread out amongst the various Air, Ground, Naval subsections...someone would invariably complain that they could not find the section in the rule book that discussed Replacements.[;)]


Certainly true. But why do it that way? Ideally (from a readers standpoint) they should be in both places, but that would make updating a manual more error prone (in the event only one place is updated) and much more labor intensive. The practical solution is to have the information in one place and as many other places as necessary reference that one place. In fact, the manual already has many cross references. For example, the Air section already references the Reinforcements and Replacements section for information on upgrading air groups. It just doesn't do the same thing for air replacements. A simple solution could be just to have sub-sections in the Air section called "Upgrades" and "Replacements" that do nothing more than send the reader to the Reinforcements and Replacements section. That way a newer player searching for the information in the Air section and/or the table of contents in the air section would find where they have to look for it. [;)]



jwilkerson -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/26/2010 9:30:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Moss Orleni


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Like for me, to learn how to fight carrier battles - I built a sand box - and ran literally hundreds of test battles. This was how I learned the "defensive split" tactic really works well (too well?) in WITP. But then I was able to teach this to my opponents so they wouldn't keep losing all their carriers!


Out of sheer curiosity (and because it sounds a bit like the Crane Kick from Karate Kid [:)]):

what is the "defensive split" tactic?

Cheers,

Moss


In general, the "defensive split" tactics says that if you are weaker than the enemy - you split up your forces - so that if one group is trapped - you only lose one small group - rather than losing everything.

A fuller description of the paradigm might be:

If your "first shot" (first attack) can probably overwhelm the enemy, then concentrate enough firepower to generate this "first effective strike". If it doubtful whether your "first shot" can overwhelem the enemy, then split up your forces so that if the enemy overwhelms you - he will find it more difficult to destroy your entire force.

So this is the basic idea (as eloquently described in Captain Wayne P. Hughes "Fleet Tactics").

==

In WITP and AE there is a specific implementation - especially for the Allies - which says "Always go to battle with 1 CV per TF". By doing this - especially in WITP - you can avoid the "CV Strike Penalty". This tactic is most effective if all of the CV TFs are in the same hex. So have one TF (the slowest) be the leader and have all the other TFs follow.

I practiced this literally hundreds of times before being comfortable that I could use it in a game. However, since I never get to play the Allies (except when testing), my only benefit from the testing was to enable me to teach my opponents the tactic so they could use it against me. But it did dramatically reduce the probability of a lop-sided Japanese CV battle victory - which meant that the games could then proceed past 1942.





MikeS4269 -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/27/2010 1:01:51 AM)

I just re-opened the manual and realized something for the first time: no cross references

I play a lot of boardgames. I pretty much get a game a week in if I can. Some of them can be rather complex with forty or more pages.

Looking at those rules now, I see that they are loaded with cross references to ease players in finding relevant things in other sections.


TAKEN FROM SILENT WAR RULEBOOK ULTRA SECTION:

[7.4] Submarines are never required to respond to ULTRA
information. The decision to Patrol Move and take advantage of
the target-rich environment is up to the player and should be
balanced by the risks associated with Patrol Movement (see
[12.0]).

I then can go to rule 12.0 if I need to and get the rest of the data if it applies.

I mentioned the mistake I made about missing the entire replacements section to my arch-enemy / good friend Michael U, and he wrote me an email back this morning:


I did read the full WitP:AE manual, but it's difficult to remember all the subtle points in 300 pages of rules. Plus if you haven't played it, as I hadn't when I read the rules, it doesn't all make sense.

Since he has what seems to be a photographic memory and a mind trap for obscure rules/points, this did ease my bruised perception skills just a tad. It then also got me re-thinking about the fact that the rules are indeed over 300 pages long.

I am reading a book called "DOUBLE EDGED SECRETS" on Ultra right now. (A good read, BTW)
It's just a hair over 200 pages and reads relatively quickly. I take it with the train with me every day and get about an hour or so a day to spend on it (sometimes more).

I started that one about a week ago, and I'm still working along on it. It is technical, but I don't have to remember all the little key points for playing a better game later with Michael U.

I then realized that "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" even took me about a week to finish.

I think, for me, that puts this 300 page rulebook into perspective a little.

Which reminds me, I should be reading it! Michael U complained I didn't send a turn yesterday when I spent all my allocated WitP AE time in the forums again. I printed up the first 120 pages of the rule to go through this morning carefully with a cup of coffee.

Let's hope the newborn stays sleeping just a little longer....

-Lb

(Still regretting I have but one life to give to this game!) [:)]



witpqs -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/27/2010 2:16:25 AM)

There are cross-references in the manual. I'm sure there could be more, but there are some.



MikeS4269 -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/27/2010 2:25:19 AM)


TAKEN FROM "WAR IN THE PACIFIC" BY DECISION GAMES:

Additionally, any attacking Japanese
wave entering the Air/Surface Tactical
Display that is composed of a majority of
“elite” AP’s is allowed more flexibility in
location of entry (see 7.7.1).

“Elite” markers are placed beneath
regular, like-type Japanese AP’s in order
to distinguish between them on the Air
Displays.

[7.11.1] Elite Unit Deployments
Scenario Rule 68.3.3 lists the deployment
allowances for Japanese elite AP’s.

[7.11.2] Elite AP’s retain their status until
eliminated. Elite AP’s may never be rebuilt
or reinforced as such. Exception: see
7.11 .6. The original deployment is thus
the finite limit on the maximum number
of elite Japanese AP’s.

[7.11.3] If the Japanese player takes air
attrition losses at an airbase containing
both elite and regular AP’s of the same
AP type, he may be liable for loss of the
elite AP’s (see 37.1.7).

[7.11.4] Elite Japanese BMR AP’s may,
without penalty, operate at any altitude as
level bombers.

Player’s Note: This provision may often bestow
“Combined Attack” benefits on Japanese
Naval Strikes involving these BMR
types. This is intentional. Note also that,
beginning in 1942, the US player gains
this same altitude adjustment advantage,
at low altitude only, with B-17 AP’s and
in 1943, with B-25 and B-26 AP’s (see 7.1
“B”).


The above is relatively standard in most war-board game rulebooks.

-Lb



ckammp -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/27/2010 2:37:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lb4269


TAKEN FROM "WAR IN THE PACIFIC" BY DECISION GAMES:

Additionally, any attacking Japanese
wave entering the Air/Surface Tactical
Display that is composed of a majority of
“elite” AP’s is allowed more flexibility in
location of entry (see 7.7.1).

“Elite” markers are placed beneath
regular, like-type Japanese AP’s in order
to distinguish between them on the Air
Displays.

[7.11.1] Elite Unit Deployments
Scenario Rule 68.3.3 lists the deployment
allowances for Japanese elite AP’s.

[7.11.2] Elite AP’s retain their status until
eliminated. Elite AP’s may never be rebuilt
or reinforced as such. Exception: see
7.11 .6. The original deployment is thus
the finite limit on the maximum number
of elite Japanese AP’s.

[7.11.3] If the Japanese player takes air
attrition losses at an airbase containing
both elite and regular AP’s of the same
AP type, he may be liable for loss of the
elite AP’s (see 37.1.7).

[7.11.4] Elite Japanese BMR AP’s may,
without penalty, operate at any altitude as
level bombers.

Player’s Note: This provision may often bestow
“Combined Attack” benefits on Japanese
Naval Strikes involving these BMR
types. This is intentional. Note also that,
beginning in 1942, the US player gains
this same altitude adjustment advantage,
at low altitude only, with B-17 AP’s and
in 1943, with B-25 and B-26 AP’s (see 7.1
“B”).


The above is relatively standard in most war-board game rulebooks.

-Lb


AE isn't most war-board games, and neither is it's manual.



witpqs -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/27/2010 2:43:31 AM)

From the AE manual:

quote:

The options are:
»» Fog of War (section 2.4.1)
»» Advanced Weather Effects (section 2.4.2)
»» Allied Damage Control (section 2.4.3)
»» Player Defined Upgrades (section 2.4.4)
»» Historical First Turn (section 2.4.5)
»» December 7th Surprise (section 2.4.6)
»» Reliable USN Torpedoes (section 2.4.7)
»» Realistic R&D (section 2.4.8)
»» No Unit Withdrawals (section 2.4.9)
»» Reinforcement – Allied or Japanese (section 2.4.10)


and

quote:

Load/Unload - Transport Task Forces load and unload cargos. (Section 6.3)
Coastwatcher Check and Trigger Reactions - Coastwatchers attempt to sight enemy Task
Forces. Task Forces that have “React to Enemy” movement orders this turn receive their new
destinations. (Section 8.7)
Auto Minesweeping - Automated Minesweeping Task Forces (those set on computer control)
conduct minesweeping operations. (Section 6.6.2)
Naval Movement - Task Forces move towards their destinations. Ships expend endurance
points, resolve meeting combat, check for system damage due to being at sea, and conduct
mine warfare operations (including being attacked by mines). (Section 6.6)
Night Air Operations* - All air movement and combat is resolved. (Section 7.2.1.3)
Surface Combat - Remaining ship vs. ship surface combat is resolved. (Section 6.4.2)
Naval Bombardment - Naval bombardments of bases and ground units are resolved. (Section
6.4.3)
Ground Unit Movement - Ground units move toward their destinations. (Section 8.3)
Repair Ships - Ships undergo repair. (Section 14.2)
Base Repair/Construction - Base repair and construction occur, along with construction of
fortifications at bases. (Section 9.5)
Supply Needs Calculation and Overland Supply Movement - The supply needs of all units
and bases are calculated and automatic overland movement of supplies occurs. (Section
15.1)
Task Force Adjustment - Crippled ships are automatically detached into their own Task
Forces. Certain Task Forces have their destinations set so that they will return to base. (Section
6.2.3.1) This sub-phase occurs only during the Night Resolution Phase.
Day Resolution Phase - The system continues to process all orders, which are resolved over
a day period of 12 hours. This Phase is resolved by the computer. This list gives the player a
general idea of what happens when.
Load/Unload - Transport Task Forces load and unload cargos. (Section 6.3)
Coastwatcher Check and Trigger Reactions - Coastwatchers attempt to sight enemy Task
Forces. Task Forces that have “react to enemy” movement orders this turn receive their new
destinations. (Section 8.7 & 6.2.5.14)
Auto Minesweeping - Automated Minesweeping Task Forces (those set on computer control)
conduct minesweeping operations. (Section 6.6.2).
33
Getting Started
Naval Movement - Task Forces move towards their destinations. Ships expend endurance,
resolve meeting combat, check for system damage, and conduct mine warfare operations
(including being attacked by mines). (Section 6.6)
Day Air Operations** - All air movement and combat is resolved (see Air Ops for additional
detail in section 7.2.1.2)
Surface Combat - ship vs. ship surface combat is resolved. (Section 6.4.2)
Naval Bombardment - Naval bombardments of bases and ground units are resolved. (Section
6.4.3)
Ground Combat - Combat between ground units is resolved. (Section 8.4) This sub-phase
occurs only during the Day Resolution Phase.
Ground Movement - Ground units move. (Section 8.3)
Repair Ships - Ships undergo repair. (Section 14.2)
Base Construction and Repair - Bases are built, repaired and fortified. (Section 9.5)
Supply Needs Calculation and Overland Supply Movement - The Supply needs of all units
and bases are calculated and automatic overland movement of supplies occurs. (Section
15.1)
Supply Operations** - Supply Operations are conducted including supplying ground and air
units and repairing planes. (Section 15.0)
Task Force Adjustment - Crippled ships are automatically detached into their own Task
Forces. Certain Task Forces have their destinations set so that they will return to base. (Section
6.2.3.1)


and

quote:

VF-2 is Carrier Trained (meaning its pilots know how to operate their planes from a carrier),
is stationed on the Lexington, and is comprised of F2A-3 Buffalo fighters. There are 18
serviceable aircraft in the squadron (i.e., ready for combat operations), and 4 aircraft are being
144
repaired (having been damaged in combat or needing regular maintenance or overhaul) and
none in reserve (extra aircraft to replace those lost or seriously damaged in combat). Losses
are recorded to the right and are broken out by cause. Values to the right of the slash are
cumulative. To the left are for the last day. Causes are Ops / Write offs (WOff), Air to Air (A2A)
/ Flak, and on the Ground. See Section 7.2.1.14 Operational Losses to Aircraft for more on
Write Offs
The average time to repair all aircraft is 3 days. The time to repair can be an indicator of
several factors such as the complexity of the aircraft (see section 15.4.1 and 7.4.2.7.1), current
effectiveness (MOR, FAT, EXP) of your AV support, supply, and the state of Airfield service
damage.


... and plenty more. I agree there could be more, but the point is that there are many cross references and claiming that there are none is unfair to those who wrote the manual.



MikeS4269 -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/27/2010 2:44:07 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

AE isn't most war-board games, and neither is it's manual.


I know. [:)] Once I bought WitP AE, I literally and figuratively shelved all my strategic level pacific war games. None could do it better than this one.

It's manual could still look into taking a pointer or two from how others do it to make the information more easily cross-referenced for those who learn / access things that way.

-Lb



MikeS4269 -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/27/2010 2:48:21 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

... and plenty more. I agree there could be more, but the point is that there are many cross references and claiming that there are none is unfair to those who wrote the manual.



I realized that I did type "no cross references".

It was a mistake. I shall be more careful with wording in the future. Good point. Apologies.

-Lb







ckammp -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/27/2010 2:52:15 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lb4269


quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

AE isn't most war-board games, and neither is it's manual.


I know. [:)] Once I bought WitP AE, I literally and figuratively shelved all my strategic level pacific war games. None could do it better than this one.

It's manual could still look into taking a pointer or two from how others do it to make the information more easily cross-referenced for those who learn / access things that way.

-Lb



Don't worry.
Just as you have shelved all your other games, you will also forget all the other game manuals you have ever read, and the AE manual will make perfect sense.[;)]



Moss Orleni -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/27/2010 8:52:17 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

In general, the "defensive split" tactics says that if you are weaker than the enemy - you split up your forces - so that if one group is trapped - you only lose one small group - rather than losing everything.

A fuller description of the paradigm might be:

If your "first shot" (first attack) can probably overwhelm the enemy, then concentrate enough firepower to generate this "first effective strike". If it doubtful whether your "first shot" can overwhelem the enemy, then split up your forces so that if the enemy overwhelms you - he will find it more difficult to destroy your entire force.

So this is the basic idea (as eloquently described in Captain Wayne P. Hughes "Fleet Tactics").

==

In WITP and AE there is a specific implementation - especially for the Allies - which says "Always go to battle with 1 CV per TF". By doing this - especially in WITP - you can avoid the "CV Strike Penalty". This tactic is most effective if all of the CV TFs are in the same hex. So have one TF (the slowest) be the leader and have all the other TFs follow.

I practiced this literally hundreds of times before being comfortable that I could use it in a game. However, since I never get to play the Allies (except when testing), my only benefit from the testing was to enable me to teach my opponents the tactic so they could use it against me. But it did dramatically reduce the probability of a lop-sided Japanese CV battle victory - which meant that the games could then proceed past 1942.



Thanks for the insight! The Force is truly strong in you, Obi-Wan! [&o]

Actually, I already intuitively use this tactic, since it's a special case of the general dispersal tactic.Considered to be rather gamey by some, splitting up your forces in small units used to be particularly handy when trying to run from superior forces. Wondering though if this is still as useful in AE as it was before...

I've seen surface combat TFs intercept multiple small TFs in one turn and obliterate them one by one. The react routines seem to allow for multiple engagements in one turn, which is a good thing I think.
And as for air strikes: they are still limited to one strike per air phase per raid combination (I think). So funnily, in order to counter TF dispersal tactics, you should look for the opposite of what many people try to do: instead of organizing one massive strike, it might be much more effective to organize as many (smaller) raids as possible...I suppose this can be done by splitting up your carriers as well, setting different altitudes, ... in short everything to avoid coordination [:)].

Cheers,

Moss




jwilkerson -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/27/2010 4:46:09 PM)

Yes, taking this to the "extreme" (as I've had done to me by one opponent) of splitting 50 PT boats up into 50 one boat TFs in one hex could definitely be described as "gamey" - though I'm not one to use such undefined terms. This has been mitigated at bit in AE relative to WITP because there now can be some "bleed over" across multiple TFs in the hex at least for air strikes - not for surface battles.






Buck Beach -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/27/2010 8:04:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Yes, taking this to the "extreme" (as I've had done to me by one opponent) of splitting 50 PT boats up into 50 one boat TFs in one hex could definitely be described as "gamey" - though I'm not one to use such undefined terms. This has been mitigated at bit in AE relative to WITP because there now can be some "bleed over" across multiple TFs in the hex at least for air strikes - not for surface battles.






I have used the tactic many times as it relates to escaping the "see all" Japanese snoopers to get ships out of Hong Kong and the Philippines on the first two play days of the war. My AI opponent was very tolerant and didn't cry fowl even once.



Moss Orleni -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/27/2010 9:35:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Yes, taking this to the "extreme" (as I've had done to me by one opponent) of splitting 50 PT boats up into 50 one boat TFs in one hex could definitely be described as "gamey" - though I'm not one to use such undefined terms. This has been mitigated at bit in AE relative to WITP because there now can be some "bleed over" across multiple TFs in the hex at least for air strikes - not for surface battles.



In our current PBEM, we've just witnessed a "bleed over" in surface combat as well: 4 small cargo TFs moving through the same hex were intercepted and destroyed one by one, all by the same surface combat TF. A fifth was intercepted as well, but escaped... it's great to see that the intercept routines seem to mitigate "small TF" tactics!
Didn't witness any air combat "bleed over" yet...

Moss



jwilkerson -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/28/2010 12:50:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
I have used the tactic many times as it relates to escaping the "see all" Japanese snoopers to get ships out of Hong Kong and the Philippines on the first two play days of the war. My AI opponent was very tolerant and didn't cry fowl even once.


Since these are not combat vessels - like PT Boats - I say this is a different matter. When we do it with combat vessels - 50 PT boats in 1 vessel TFs all in the same hex - we are pretty obviously trying to "bork" the combat model.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Moss Orleni


In our current PBEM, we've just witnessed a "bleed over" in surface combat as well: 4 small cargo TFs moving through the same hex were intercepted and destroyed one by one, all by the same surface combat TF. A fifth was intercepted as well, but escaped... it's great to see that the intercept routines seem to mitigate "small TF" tactics!
Didn't witness any air combat "bleed over" yet...

Moss


But that's a multi-battle "bleed over". When I was saying "bleed over" I meant one battle affecting ships from more than one TF. Put several one CV TFs in the same hex and hit them with a large strike - you should see some bleed over - I have most times - probably not every time.






John Lansford -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/28/2010 3:22:19 AM)

OTOH, I have several times seen my defeated surface forces retreat, and then the AI TF reacts onto them, we fight another battle, my survivors retreat again, and the AI again reacts onto them.  I had one TF get "pursued" that way for about 4 hexes across the north face of Borneo, and in another fight about 3 hexes across the Java Sea.



Moss Orleni -> RE: A Long standing Situation (2/28/2010 1:54:56 PM)

Indeed, my case was a multi-battle bleed-over, and pretty similar to John Lansford's experience.

Since an airstrike can apparently spill over to multiple TFs, and since one big SC TFs can multi-react to several TFs as well,
it becomes an interesting question how to best counter dipersal tactics: by the classic approach of trying to concentrate ships and strikes, or by deliberately trying to split up into smaller attacks...



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.75