RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (Full Version)

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



Message

witpqs -> RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (4/23/2010 8:28:22 PM)

Notice that as we move over the hill we can now see the reverse slope:



[image]local://upfiles/14248/673249E03F694AC48619AB44144FF696.jpg[/image]



witpqs -> RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (4/23/2010 8:37:06 PM)

Here is side view of one cliff area in the Bight, eye height is 97 ft:



[image]local://upfiles/14248/2F8E8F3102724320B6A47E467BB7F281.jpg[/image]

From looking at the on-screen displays, the top-middle of the cliff shown is ~227 ft.



witpqs -> RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (4/23/2010 8:40:58 PM)

Last one I'll post, a view down the beach to the West:



[image]local://upfiles/14248/CF2A4ECA7D8D431D8A31EEA09AC14275.jpg[/image]



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (4/23/2010 9:43:32 PM)

Hmm. I'll take another look. I didn't zoom in that far.
I'll also see if I have the most current GE. I haven't updated it since at least 2007.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (4/23/2010 10:07:30 PM)

Wow.

I had not looked at my settings in GE in years. Turns out I had antialiasing off, and terrain detail at about 30% of max. I have an old PC, but a pretty fast DSL now, so I cranked it up and took another look. A lot more 3-D than I've ever seen before.

I found a part of the Bight which I looked at from 20 feet height-of-eye, many miles long. White sandy beaches, no cliffs. Slight rise behind beach to desert, maybe 10 degree slope. I didn't do an exhaustive survey, but I can see how hard this was to hex code. Andrew Brown did a great job on the map, and must have the patience of a saint to have gone over this vast thing hex by hex.



JeffroK -> RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (4/23/2010 11:38:27 PM)

Hah,

How about you actually check out photographs of the cliffs rather than use googly maps.

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200707/r162256_596380.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.abc.net.au/news/photos/2007/07/23/1985537.htm&h=399&w=600&sz=55&tbnid=tr-XmWm-EcNYWM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=135&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgreat%2Baustralian%2Bbight&hl=en&usg=__vWZ8pkt2TYButIH4xDFx2nKdb4U=&ei=jyLSS760E4yOkQWY2JycDA&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=4&ct=image&ved=0CBgQ9QEwAw

http://www.google.com.au/imgres?imgurl=http://www.totaltravel.com.au/guide/photos/streakybay/great-australian-bight-satc.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.totaltravel.com.au/au/photographer/satc/streakybay/great-australian-bight-satc&h=400&w=311&sz=27&tbnid=aI1P4KGRTLLLTM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=96&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dgreat%2Baustralian%2Bbight&hl=en&usg=__teUv9MfHd7y2JAK9MF9Vmc0-XoA=&ei=jyLSS760E4yOkQWY2JycDA&sa=X&oi=image_result&resnum=8&ct=image&ved=0CCAQ9QEwBw


From Fowlers Bay to Eucla (pull out a map and find them) the cliffs are abrupt and go up to 300m, the view is amazing.

From Eucla west the cliffline move inland 5-20 miles but the beaches are far from flat, not an impossible obstacle as thee is a continual swell, the waves come up from the Antartica.

Near Cocklebiddy the cliffs come back to the coastline and continue to approx 100m east of Esperance. (On my map the are labled "Perpendicular cliffs)

I'm sure AB could have put in this sort of review, if the AE Team thought of it but they looked at it as a game where you fight at bases, not the intervening hexes. Look at some of the inconsequential places which are shown as a base just because in WW2 there was a fight there. 

PS, The data is out there, I've seen the SWPA coastal survey of the islands and coastlines in the theatre!



JeffroK -> RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (4/24/2010 12:05:29 AM)

Now I have read all of the posts and seen the clip of AB's reply.

IMHO, if the effort is worth it. Up to people to decide.

Using the US Army topographical maps available on the web, plus other resources available, it would be possible to easily review each of the coastline hexes and put forward a list of hexes which should not be invadable with WW2 level technology.

Maybe the reason for the lack of this in AE is, historically in WW2, very fw landings were made on large land masses. Most were on Islands or at locations which are within 1 hex. For example, the japanese landings at Koepang & Rabaul didnt come in on the main defended beaches but on the less defended "back beaches" but still within the hex in game terms.



Shark7 -> RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (4/24/2010 9:43:50 AM)

On the bright side, it won't matter...Soviets have enough troops in Siberia to literally crush the Japanese Kwantung garrison in less than a year. Striking the USSR is not just ill-advised, its near suicidal.



Smeulders -> RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (4/24/2010 3:32:12 PM)

Except we haven't seen that play out just yet. Seylditz seems to have been doing fairly well in his invasion and was destroying a lot of troops. Of course we didn't have the Allied perspective on that one. Not having any AFV and low air replacements won't help the Soviets either.



witpqs -> RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (4/24/2010 6:36:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

Except we haven't seen that play out just yet. Seylditz seems to have been doing fairly well in his invasion and was destroying a lot of troops. Of course we didn't have the Allied perspective on that one. Not having any AFV and low air replacements won't help the Soviets either.


Yes, he was doing an AAR too.



Jzanes -> RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (4/24/2010 8:48:14 PM)

Y'all can check my AAR of a soviet campaign from the allied side. It starts on Dec 7 and the Soviet campaign starts in May.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2347310

The soviets do have a large fairly decent quality army but my opponent and I agree that eventually they will be beat by attrition. They get NO tank replacments, NO new tank types till late 1944, and very very few air replacements (just a handful of MIGs and IL-2s really) until late 43 for fighters and late 1944 for bombers. My opponent even admits that lack of replacements has a been a major component of his strategy in deciding to attack the soviets and how he goes about fighting them.



JeffroK -> RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (4/24/2010 11:09:38 PM)

But you can fly in Allied LBA, watch your opponent squirm when some B17/24 start bombing the Home Islands!



jetjockey -> RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (4/25/2010 12:21:13 AM)

JeffK,

I like the way you think!



akdreemer -> RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (4/25/2010 1:25:25 AM)

First, what time of year? If winter time then the Amur is frozen and used as a winter road. If Summer time the long perpetual daylight would make any movements on the river visible to everyone who had eyes.

Second, I suspect that without the help of local river pilots, no one would be able to navigate the Amur river without frequent groundings, etc. due to its silty nature.

Third, do not underestimate the Soviets and their ability to monitor what is happening along the Amur.. They were at a semi-state of war with Japan, whom the Soviets did not trust at all. Even during the darkest hours in the struggle for Moscow the Far East armies were still at war strength.

So as a whole, I think a landing there would be gamey at best.



Smeulders -> RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (4/25/2010 9:47:42 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs


quote:

ORIGINAL: Smeulders

Except we haven't seen that play out just yet. Seylditz seems to have been doing fairly well in his invasion and was destroying a lot of troops. Of course we didn't have the Allied perspective on that one. Not having any AFV and low air replacements won't help the Soviets either.


Yes, he was doing an AAR too.


I've completely missed that, I'll try to find it, could be interesting reading.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (4/25/2010 7:35:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

Hah,

How about you actually check out photographs of the cliffs rather than use googly maps.


From Fowlers Bay to Eucla (pull out a map and find them) the cliffs are abrupt and go up to 300m, the view is amazing.

From Eucla west the cliffline move inland 5-20 miles but the beaches are far from flat, not an impossible obstacle as thee is a continual swell, the waves come up from the Antartica.

Near Cocklebiddy the cliffs come back to the coastline and continue to approx 100m east of Esperance. (On my map the are labled "Perpendicular cliffs)

I'm sure AB could have put in this sort of review, if the AE Team thought of it but they looked at it as a game where you fight at bases, not the intervening hexes. Look at some of the inconsequential places which are shown as a base just because in WW2 there was a fight there. 

PS, The data is out there, I've seen the SWPA coastal survey of the islands and coastlines in the theatre!



No one is disputing that there are cliffs, only that they may not extend in an unbrokedn line for 1000km.


This is Google Earth, height of eye 61 feet, location 32 degrees 13 minutes 11.27 S; 127 degrees 28 minutes 10.97 E
The first band of white is 12 feet above sea level. The interface betwen the white and dark line is between 47 and 51 feet above sea level.




[image]local://upfiles/31387/C6DAB5B08A024160B5D25CE2453A33B4.jpg[/image]



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (4/25/2010 7:37:05 PM)

This is the same place, looking back at rthe ocean, Height of eye 71 feet.



[image]local://upfiles/31387/5712D79C8A0741EC81DB68E5F7311335.jpg[/image]



JeffroK -> RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (4/25/2010 11:00:54 PM)

No, the cliffs are not unbroken for 100k, there is about a 100k gap where the cliffs move inland some 5-20k.

But that doesnt mean the beaches are flat and inviting to invasion.

Google Earth does not rate as a decent reference.

As I said, look up some better references and maps.



witpqs -> RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (4/26/2010 12:33:08 AM)

I agree there is more to it than cliffs, but the cliffs had been presented as an impenetrable barrier for 1,000km.

I think Andrew summed it up well. There are hexes that are can't be invaded in AE. More can be added if you give him a list. The Bight of Australia is probably not terribly useful to spend the time on, just given the course that games take and the main point. The main point being that non-base invasions will be somewhat close to bases, not in the middle of a wilderness stretch like the Bight. The object of non-base invasions is to attack bases but avoid some particular defensive configuration. If there are absolutely no bases anywhere around, there is no invasion!

Even if an IJ player put ashore a battalion in the Bight to march and cut the railroad, they would have to be supplied and marching to the railroad would take time anyway.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (4/26/2010 3:43:58 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

I agree there is more to it than cliffs, but the cliffs had been presented as an impenetrable barrier for 1,000km.



Yes, I myself was picturing the shield wall of the planet Arrakis.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: Gamey or Not? part 2 (4/26/2010 3:49:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: JeffK

No, the cliffs are not unbroken for 100k, there is about a 100k gap where the cliffs move inland some 5-20k.

But that doesnt mean the beaches are flat and inviting to invasion.

Google Earth does not rate as a decent reference.

As I said, look up some better references and maps.



Here's a surface picture. That beach is a whole lot more inviting than some the Allies successfully invaded across.

Many, many more at:

http://www.picsearch.com/info.cgi?q=Great%20Australian%20Bight&id=Rw5W2vpUe4yS0hsxRo2ybqvFXxZuguZ5cGehvaadVJ8&start=21



[image]local://upfiles/31387/1E01C9EE163046DC86666E7D03E0AF8C.jpg[/image]



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.671875