Rationale For Magical Base Expansion Knowledge? (Full Version)

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



Message

Icedawg -> Rationale For Magical Base Expansion Knowledge? (5/31/2010 1:10:02 PM)

Can anyone explain to me how one side should be made aware of the other side's base expansion without having to recon? As it is now, the opposing side gets a message indicating that a base has been expanded. I can understand the work of spies and such in highly developed areas (Tokyo, PH, Brisbane etc) accounting for the information gained about base expansion. However, how could the opposing side be aware of a small airfield being built on some remote atoll 1000s of miles from the nearest friendly base? It seems like active recon should be required, doesn't it?

I ask because I would like to set up small "secret" airfields from which to fly Nav Search and ASW patrols. As is, I can't do this. Whenever I build such an airfield, my opponent will be given a message indicating that I have expanded the airfield, thereby paritally giving away my intentions.

I thought that one of the new features of AE was that base information was no longer going to be magically given to the enemy. This information was going to have to be earned (by recon or nav search). Was there a change of plans during development?



LoBaron -> RE: Rationale For Magical Base Expansion Knowledge? (5/31/2010 1:15:12 PM)

AFAIK you get this message only when you have a DL on that base.

This can also be due to a sub stationed there or coast watchers.



Icedawg -> RE: Rationale For Magical Base Expansion Knowledge? (5/31/2010 1:42:23 PM)

Thanks for the explanation. I was thinking that all of these messages I was receiving about enemy base expansion were divine gifts. So now my secretive base construction plans should still work. Nice to know.

By the way, what does AFAIK stand for?



LoBaron -> RE: Rationale For Magical Base Expansion Knowledge? (5/31/2010 1:48:36 PM)

As Far As I Know. [;)]

So take with a grain of salt. But I have yet to see an information on an enemy base expansion where I got no DL.



castor troy -> RE: Rationale For Magical Base Expansion Knowledge? (5/31/2010 2:07:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron

As Far As I Know. [;)]

So take with a grain of salt. But I have yet to see an information on an enemy base expansion where I got no DL.



you also get messages (if you watch them carefully) for bases in Japan, Manchuko or China where you shouldnīt have any coastwatchers, subs, or recon aircraft.



castor troy -> RE: Rationale For Magical Base Expansion Knowledge? (5/31/2010 2:10:09 PM)

As the next thing will be asking for evidence, by accident Iīve got an operational report with me at work from my PBEM, me as the ALLIED side... and no, Medan and Hakodate are not in Allied hands, nor do I have any recon there. And Iīve also got no subs in those hexes if that would be questioned.

OPERATIONAL REPORT FOR Dec 17, 42
TF 364 does not have enough fuel to complete mission
Hakodate expands airfield to size 5
Medan expands airfield to size 4
Delayed planes for the aircraft pool:


edit: deleted the rest of the report as thatīs too much intel for my evil opponent... [;)]



Bogo Mil -> RE: Rationale For Magical Base Expansion Knowledge? (5/31/2010 2:28:07 PM)

When you watch the replay, you get messages for your own bases only. But the operations report contains messages for all bases. And you can always check the exact size of any base on the map, of course.

I don't think there is a rationale for this. They just didn't program any fog of war here.



Thayne -> RE: Rationale For Magical Base Expansion Knowledge? (5/31/2010 3:34:26 PM)

There are a lot of ways for the military to learn that the enemy is working on expanding various bases and installations - from spies on the ground to captured prisoners to intercepted communications.

Building up a base is not something easily hidden behind lock and key. Anybody living nearby will know about the work being done.

I simply assume that this information got extracted from the various pieces of information somehow.



CapAndGown -> RE: Rationale For Magical Base Expansion Knowledge? (5/31/2010 4:08:33 PM)

Face it, there is no rationale. The original game was designed so you could gather info on a base by doing a mouse over and that has not changed.



Icedawg -> RE: Rationale For Magical Base Expansion Knowledge? (5/31/2010 5:14:07 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thayne

There are a lot of ways for the military to learn that the enemy is working on expanding various bases and installations - from spies on the ground to captured prisoners to intercepted communications.

Building up a base is not something easily hidden behind lock and key. Anybody living nearby will know about the work being done.

I simply assume that this information got extracted from the various pieces of information somehow.


I'm referring to small fighter strips on remote atolls. Not many people live on these things and those that do surely don't have radios.



oldman45 -> RE: Rationale For Magical Base Expansion Knowledge? (5/31/2010 5:57:10 PM)

It could also be that when that small base used its radio to report that the work is complete the message was intercepted. Sometimes the simple reason is right ;)



Bradley7735 -> RE: Rationale For Magical Base Expansion Knowledge? (5/31/2010 8:50:59 PM)

I like this feature. The bases that are within 1,000 to 1,500 miles of the front would be easy to spot construction, via subs, coast watchers and search aircraft. This encompases most of the bases that matter. The bases that don't matter are: SE Pacific bases. If you're developing them in secret, to run ASW and Search missions, then I can see your arguement. But, building up a REMOTE base to run search ops seems kind of rediculous. It's remote, meaning no enemy units nearby to spot.

Now, if you're arguing to build up Stewart Island as allies, when Japan holds Lunga, then I don't see your arguement. any half assed plane from Lunga will see your work in progress at Stewart Is, Duff Is, etc.

Building up the French polynesia bases should be relatively secret, but which IJN player will be stuffing that area with subs?

The bases in Manchuria, in theory, could be spotted by Russian planes. There's really not a lot of places on the map that can't be reached by subs, coast watchers or planes.

Anyway, that's my opinion, for what its worth.....



CapAndGown -> RE: Rationale For Magical Base Expansion Knowledge? (5/31/2010 9:18:01 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Bradley7735

I like this feature. The bases that are within 1,000 to 1,500 miles of the front would be easy to spot construction, via subs, coast watchers and search aircraft. This encompases most of the bases that matter. The bases that don't matter are: SE Pacific bases. If you're developing them in secret, to run ASW and Search missions, then I can see your arguement. But, building up a REMOTE base to run search ops seems kind of rediculous. It's remote, meaning no enemy units nearby to spot.

Now, if you're arguing to build up Stewart Island as allies, when Japan holds Lunga, then I don't see your arguement. any half assed plane from Lunga will see your work in progress at Stewart Is, Duff Is, etc.

Building up the French polynesia bases should be relatively secret, but which IJN player will be stuffing that area with subs?

The bases in Manchuria, in theory, could be spotted by Russian planes. There's really not a lot of places on the map that can't be reached by subs, coast watchers or planes.

Anyway, that's my opinion, for what its worth.....


Mainly, this feature saves a lot of micro-management. No need to constantly run recon to check on the enemy's build up.



bradfordkay -> RE: Rationale For Magical Base Expansion Knowledge? (6/1/2010 6:34:24 AM)

Wasn't the airstrip that was built by the Japanese at Munda done almost completely undercover?



Sredni -> RE: Rationale For Magical Base Expansion Knowledge? (6/1/2010 7:41:34 AM)

I kinda wish these base expansion messages were color coded. I keep seeing "x base expands airfield to 3" in the ops reports and then I'm left wondering if thats my base or an enemy base or what. The ops reports would be a lot more readable if it wasn't all just plain black text.

Like when your subs get whacked by flying Naval Search or ASW patrols. You don't see that in combat reports, and it's buried in ops with "x sub is spotted by Y patrol plane". So half the time I don't even realize some sub of mine is crippled limping home until it gets there.

If the "sub X is reported hit!" message in ops was in red lettering it'd be a lot easier to pick out.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.765625