And the mistake was?

And the mistake was? (Full Version)

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

Message

Lanconic -> And the mistake was? (11/24/2011 8:17:40 PM)
Ok I landed the entire first Marine on Baker Island. It had the correct designation for 100 days I used 5 AP It had the support of six CV and six BB. The landing was not opposed by the IJN I landed on a SNLF and a small BF It took two weeks to clear the island, and two months to pick the 1st up, and return it to Pearl. When it got to Pearl, 1/3 of its TOE in combat infantry was gone. Two months later, it is still gone. They didnt die in combat. So I overlooked something? The size of the Island? Its gonna take a long time to get to Japan if the Marines never get repl.

Terminus -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/24/2011 8:25:27 PM)
Sigh... Start by stating the date. Then whether or not any of your transports were sunk whilst transporting the division back from the fight. And maybe, considering how quickly you went off with your last question, is there a fragment left on the island?

Treetop64 -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/24/2011 9:44:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Terminus ...is there a fragment left on the island? Immediately that came to mind.

JeffroK -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/24/2011 9:47:04 PM)
Supply, Are you playing under stacking limits which I believe are on 6,000 for Baker Is, this would have chewed up supply and then eaten into your squads. Doesnt explain why it wont rebuild, many of the latest betas had butoons for accepting replacements or upgrades?

Lanconic -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/25/2011 12:15:09 AM)
Ok no there is no fragment, I would see that on the divisional display I suspect that it was a supply based issue and the men what? Died of thirst? I used the entire division. It was 9/1/42 when I landed The division right now is resting at Pearl 260 squads instead of 306? 360?

pompack -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/25/2011 12:54:49 AM)
They starved In order to prevent this (or at least most of it) I find this usually works. D Day: Land the landing force D+1: A. Assign the entire original amph force to pick up landing force D+1: B. Assign the Supply TF to begin landing supplies (the number of ships is significant, the size of the ships really doesn't matter) D+1: C. Land at least 100 Naval support per division equivilent in the Landing force; be sure there is enough sea lift to land all of them in one turn D+2-3: Starvation sets in D+4: Hopefully enough of the landing force has re-embarked that some supplies begin to accumulate and starvation ends D+5: Begin landing the support force (DB, engineers, Base force, etc) D+7: With a little luck the last survivor of the initial landing force is re-embarked If you can use AKA, APA, and LST it helps a lot getting them re-embarked. Note that if you did not take the atoll on the original assault you are really and truly screwed EDIT: Note that anyone who did not disembark on D-Day should NOT be unloaded; OTOH any ship that contains a fragment will not switch to loading troops. If you fail to get everyone off the first day, plan on bringing a lot of additional, empty ships to help the re-embarkation.

ADB123 -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/25/2011 2:17:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pompack They starved In order to prevent this (or at least most of it) I find this usually works. D Day: Land the landing force D+1: A. Assign the entire original amph force to pick up landing force D+1: B. Assign the Supply TF to begin landing supplies (the number of ships is significant, the size of the ships really doesn't matter) D+1: C. Land at least 100 Naval support per division equivilent in the Landing force; be sure there is enough sea lift to land all of them in one turn D+2-3: Starvation sets in D+4: Hopefully enough of the landing force has re-embarked that some supplies begin to accumulate and starvation ends D+5: Begin landing the support force (DB, engineers, Base force, etc) D+7: With a little luck the last survivor of the initial landing force is re-embarked If you can use AKA, APA, and LST it helps a lot getting them re-embarked. Note that if you did not take the atoll on the original assault you are really and truly screwed EDIT: Note that anyone who did not disembark on D-Day should NOT be unloaded; OTOH any ship that contains a fragment will not switch to loading troops. If you fail to get everyone off the first day, plan on bringing a lot of additional, empty ships to help the re-embarkation. Am I the only one who reads this and thinks, "There is something very, very wrong with this picture"? It's not that you are doing anything wrong, Pompak, but it seems to me that we shouldn't have to do those sorts of things in order to invade an atoll. How often did US troops starve during and after they did invasions during WW II? Beyond that, has the atoll invasion model been made exceedingly difficult for reasons that have nothing to do with reality?

JeffroK -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/25/2011 4:48:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ADB123 quote: ORIGINAL: pompack They starved In order to prevent this (or at least most of it) I find this usually works. D Day: Land the landing force D+1: A. Assign the entire original amph force to pick up landing force D+1: B. Assign the Supply TF to begin landing supplies (the number of ships is significant, the size of the ships really doesn't matter) D+1: C. Land at least 100 Naval support per division equivilent in the Landing force; be sure there is enough sea lift to land all of them in one turn D+2-3: Starvation sets in D+4: Hopefully enough of the landing force has re-embarked that some supplies begin to accumulate and starvation ends D+5: Begin landing the support force (DB, engineers, Base force, etc) D+7: With a little luck the last survivor of the initial landing force is re-embarked If you can use AKA, APA, and LST it helps a lot getting them re-embarked. Note that if you did not take the atoll on the original assault you are really and truly screwed EDIT: Note that anyone who did not disembark on D-Day should NOT be unloaded; OTOH any ship that contains a fragment will not switch to loading troops. If you fail to get everyone off the first day, plan on bringing a lot of additional, empty ships to help the re-embarkation. Am I the only one who reads this and thinks, "There is something very, very wrong with this picture"? It's not that you are doing anything wrong, Pompak, but it seems to me that we shouldn't have to do those sorts of things in order to invade an atoll. How often did US troops starve during and after they did invasions during WW II? Beyond that, has the atoll invasion model been made exceedingly difficult for reasons that have nothing to do with reality? I plan my atoll invasions so as to hit the beaches with a Div plus Tank support (later in the war I may have combat engineers as well) These units are placed on "about" twice as many AP/APA as needed so as to get 100% landed on D Day. I also support them with a Supply TF and a Transport TF carrying a Base Force and a Def Bn to land D+1. On D+1 I should be able to reload the landing force but this is subject to annoying enemy dudes, hopefully the supply on the Amphib TF can keep them going. Basically you have to smash the defenders in 1 or 2 days, take 2 Divs if needed, and then lift them off ASAP. I think the penalties for overstacking a little high, but they make you plan to avoid them rather than just land 100,000 men on a coral outcrop. Also look for stacking limits, there are some odd sized atolls out there.

Patbgaming -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/25/2011 6:53:19 AM)
In my limited experience with the game so far I would say you would never want to land a full Division on an Atoll the size of Baker Island ( 6,000 cap ). My suggestion would be an Inf Regiment supported by Combat Engineers and/or a Tank/TD Bn and also a USA Support Bn ( the ones with 200 support sqds ). The larger Atolls should be fine for using a Div+. So if you follow your same routine using this Regimental sized force for these small atolls you should have an easier time with the stacking. If the enemy is too strong for the Regimental sized force to take the small atoll, he is probably overstacked and a prime target to be starved out, or just needs a little extra bombardment before the landing.

michaelm75au -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/25/2011 9:11:19 AM)
How about showing a picture of the LCU screen and the unit's TOE? Overstacking and lack of supply can led to devices being disabled. Also out of interest, what version are you using?

pompack -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/25/2011 12:38:56 PM)
quote: How often did US troops starve during and after they did invasions during WW II? Very true, but how often did anyone try to land 20,000+ troops on an atoll only slighly larger than a city park duck pond? The rule is a quite artificial artifact to prevent people landing enormous forces onto atolls where there would literally be standing room only. A search (if the search function worked of course) of the original WitP forum would show any number of threads that actually computed the square feet (meters) per soldier for atoll invasions documented in the AAR's. The AE code might have been structured to put a counter on every invasion to stop any further landings after a limit was reached; the angry posts after failed invasions would have swamped the forum. Instead AE incorporated this rather clever rule to prevent this. So no, few American soldiers starved on Pacific atolls but no one every tried to load an atoll with so many troops that there was no place to stack supplies either. It's a game compromise.

Mac Linehan -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/25/2011 8:54:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pompack They starved In order to prevent this (or at least most of it) I find this usually works. D Day: Land the landing force D+1: A. Assign the entire original amph force to pick up landing force D+1: B. Assign the Supply TF to begin landing supplies (the number of ships is significant, the size of the ships really doesn't matter) D+1: C. Land at least 100 Naval support per division equivalent in the Landing force; be sure there is enough sea lift to land all of them in one turn D+2-3: Starvation sets in D+4: Hopefully enough of the landing force has re-embarked that some supplies begin to accumulate and starvation ends D+5: Begin landing the support force (DB, engineers, Base force, etc) D+7: With a little luck the last survivor of the initial landing force is re-embarked If you can use AKA, APA, and LST it helps a lot getting them re-embarked. Note that if you did not take the atoll on the original assault you are really and truly screwed EDIT: Note that anyone who did not disembark on D-Day should NOT be unloaded; OTOH any ship that contains a fragment will not switch to loading troops. If you fail to get everyone off the first day, plan on bringing a lot of additional, empty ships to help the re-embarkation. pompack - Succinct, exact and to the point. I shall keep this info handy. Thank you, Sir! Mac

Miller -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/25/2011 9:04:25 PM)
Do not invade Atolls after the 31st March 1942 if you are the Japs, otherwise all your men will just go up in a puff of smoke, even if you land 2000 Divisions.

Mac Linehan -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/25/2011 9:05:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pompack quote: How often did US troops starve during and after they did invasions during WW II? Very true, but how often did anyone try to land 20,000+ troops on an atoll only slighly larger than a city park duck pond? The rule is a quite artificial artifact to prevent people landing enormous forces onto atolls where there would literally be standing room only. A search (if the search function worked of course) of the original WitP forum would show any number of threads that actually computed the square feet (meters) per soldier for atoll invasions documented in the AAR's. The AE code might have been structured to put a counter on every invasion to stop any further landings after a limit was reached; the angry posts after failed invasions would have swamped the forum. Instead AE incorporated this rather clever rule to prevent this. So no, few American soldiers starved on Pacific atolls but no one every tried to load an atoll with so many troops that there was no place to stack supplies either. It's a game compromise. pompack - I do like your sense of humor, and also agree with your point. Mac

Mac Linehan -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/25/2011 9:14:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ADB123 Am I the only one who reads this and thinks, "There is something very, very wrong with this picture"? It's not that you are doing anything wrong, Pompak, but it seems to me that we shouldn't have to do those sorts of things in order to invade an atoll. How often did US troops starve during and after they did invasions during WW II? Beyond that, has the atoll invasion model been made exceedingly difficult for reasons that have nothing to do with reality? ADB123 - Sir, I respectfully submit that the USMC is full of Manly Men (some are even Southerners <grin>) - and it is a well know fact that Manly Men instinctively do things the hard way, cause it's Manly... The depth of the knowledge of history displayed by the developers of AE is amazing! Mac

m10bob -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/25/2011 9:48:52 PM)
Two cents here.......My uncle Jim fought all up the Solomons and men in his unit did starve, and malarial attrition was universal with the units early on...(Imagine an ENTIRE 400+ assault strength division reduced to near zip from malaria alone, a loss of effectives)..

ADB123 -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/25/2011 10:14:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pompack quote: How often did US troops starve during and after they did invasions during WW II? Very true, but how often did anyone try to land 20,000+ troops on an atoll only slighly larger than a city park duck pond? The rule is a quite artificial artifact to prevent people landing enormous forces onto atolls where there would literally be standing room only. A search (if the search function worked of course) of the original WitP forum would show any number of threads that actually computed the square feet (meters) per soldier for atoll invasions documented in the AAR's. The AE code might have been structured to put a counter on every invasion to stop any further landings after a limit was reached; the angry posts after failed invasions would have swamped the forum. Instead AE incorporated this rather clever rule to prevent this. So no, few American soldiers starved on Pacific atolls but no one every tried to load an atoll with so many troops that there was no place to stack supplies either. It's a game compromise. So in summary, we've got an artificial situation set up by the Devs in response to a problem in WitP that the good and smart players in AE now have equally artificial ways to work-around. Hmmm... Okay, I get the message...

pompack -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/25/2011 10:50:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ADB123 quote: ORIGINAL: pompack quote: How often did US troops starve during and after they did invasions during WW II? Very true, but how often did anyone try to land 20,000+ troops on an atoll only slighly larger than a city park duck pond? The rule is a quite artificial artifact to prevent people landing enormous forces onto atolls where there would literally be standing room only. A search (if the search function worked of course) of the original WitP forum would show any number of threads that actually computed the square feet (meters) per soldier for atoll invasions documented in the AAR's. The AE code might have been structured to put a counter on every invasion to stop any further landings after a limit was reached; the angry posts after failed invasions would have swamped the forum. Instead AE incorporated this rather clever rule to prevent this. So no, few American soldiers starved on Pacific atolls but no one every tried to load an atoll with so many troops that there was no place to stack supplies either. It's a game compromise. So in summary, we've got an artificial situation set up by the Devs in response to a problem in WitP that the good and smart players in AE now have equally artificial ways to work-around. Hmmm... Okay, I get the message... Hardly artificial. What I described is pretty much straight from the Marine Amph Force bible with the exception that the naval support troops are supposed to go in on D-Day in the second wave instead of D+1 and the fact that things were generally so screwed up that it took a month instead of a week to replace the assault force with the garrison force. However everything tends to move faster in WitP as compared with real life [:)] Note that this only applied to atolls. In real life on larger islands the assault force was often left to recover in place instead of being evacuated. Of course that may have been because large islands took far longer than a day to secure as well. P.S. My father was in charge of landing craft for an AP at Makin, Kwajalein and Eniwetok (sp). He never saw a landing bigger than a RCT on the little atolls. He did not think much of the army troops as compared to the Marines because they moved off the beaches so slowly (even with no oposition) that there was no room to land the follow-up waves. He said that at Makin all the troops had to do was advance about 300 yards and they were across the island. "As compared to an estimated 395 Japanese killed in action during the operation, American ground casualties numbered 218 including 10 killed from the naval shore party"-Wikipedia. According to my father, most of the American casualties he saw were from friendly fire; the second wave took heavier fire than the initial assault wave but a lot of that was US troops shooting at anything that moved, including landing craft.

jmalter -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/26/2011 2:26:20 AM)
kudos to pompack for the step-by-step 'splanation of atoll-level phib ops, which should go into every AFB's kit-bag. AE allows the player to model complex operations - a phib assault is more than just prepping the troops, loading them up & dumping them onto a defended base. in addition to prelim airsea bombardments, you've got to have Surf/ASW cover, you've got to have 2nd-wave supply & exploitation-phase troops, you've got to have replacement NGS ships to swap in to your amphTF, you've got to have replTFs to keep your air sqns filled out & your TFs re-fueled. far from being artificial, the game models actual operations rather well - a surfeit of logistics multiplies the power of the combat force.

Sredni -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/26/2011 2:53:23 AM)
I think a lot of this sort of problem could be avoided if there was an easy way ingame to tell the troop limit on enemy islands (and if it's an atoll or not) and to tell exactly how many troops are in a lcu. Infantry + Other Troops in the units info screen seems to correspond to how much space the lcu takes up, but it isn't exact. And it also leaves you needing to go through all your invasion groups adding up multiple numbers per lcu to figure out how high your stacking will be. And it's not very obvious for new and inexperienced players to figure this out until they've already botched an invasion or two.

Treetop64 -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/26/2011 3:00:01 AM)
We've ALL been through that.� Part of the learning process. But I agree with finding out if an enemy held island is an atoll or not, before the invasion. A simple mouseover line addition in the popup window would help. However, I disagree on finding exact numbers of enemy troops on enemy held islands - that just gives too much info to the player, and totally defeats the purpose of FoW (unless the player elected to turn it off).

Sredni -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/26/2011 3:41:48 AM)
I just meant the limit, not the actual number on the island [8D]. Once you've taken an island you can see the stacking limit in the base screen, but when it's in enemy hands you're reduced to trying to find the table in the manual with stacking limits.

Cpt Sherwood -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/26/2011 3:54:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sredni I just meant the limit, not the actual number on the island [8D]. Once you've taken an island you can see the stacking limit in the base screen, but when it's in enemy hands you're reduced to trying to find the table in the manual with stacking limits. Found this in the beta patch notes: 376. Tweaked Show island stacking limit on mouse over

Mac Linehan -> RE: And the mistake was? (11/26/2011 3:58:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sredni I just meant the limit, not the actual number on the island [8D]. Once you've taken an island you can see the stacking limit in the base screen, but when it's in enemy hands you're reduced to trying to find the table in the manual with stacking limits. Srendi - There is a stacking limit mod that is available from the Babes Website. A map mouse over will give the SL for any Base, friendly or enemy. A friendly owned base menu will also list the SL and current number of troops on site. My right mouse function is not working correctly at the moment, otherwise I would post a link. You can find a link at the bottom of JWE's posts. Real Men use Stacking Limits... <grin> Mac

Page: [1]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.609375