About SCTF disbanding in dot base... (Full Version)

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



Message

kevin_hx -> About SCTF disbanding in dot base... (6/20/2012 3:00:37 AM)

Hi, everyone

It is my first thread I post in the forum.
I'm sorry that my English is poor and put up with my words follow.

As you know, SCTF can ONLY disband in port which level is 3 and above in WITP.
Then that does in port which level is 0 even at dot base in AE.
And if you do not recon the base which the SCTF disband in, you cannot find the ship's symbol on the top-left hex.
That is, you do not know whether ships are in base or not even if your PBY seaching around the area nearby.
It is obviously illogical that using PBY naval search can find ships at sea but cannot find ships disbanded in dot base nearby.

So, I suggest that to modifying the naval searching model can also find ships in base, and to modifying the naval attack model can also naval attack ships in base.
Maybe my opinion is infantility, but it must be another way to do it.


regards,
kevin



Alfred -> RE: About SCTF disbanding in dot base... (6/20/2012 3:28:29 AM)

No need for any changes.

1. Ships disbanded in a dot base can be found. You need to specify the dot base as the target. One trip should suffice to get the DL up sufficiently to disclose the anchor symbal.

2. Ships disbanded in a dot base can be attacked in the same manner as any ship which is disbanded in a port.

Alfred



kevin_hx -> RE: About SCTF disbanding in dot base... (6/20/2012 3:55:02 AM)

But you can't air attack the ships disbanded in dot base using port attack mission except using bombardment because there is NOT a port in dot base.  
And there are so many dot bases in DEI that you cannot recon them all.
It is the opportunity for Allied to using guerilla tactics to interfere japs invasion.

kevin



LoBaron -> RE: About SCTF disbanding in dot base... (6/20/2012 7:50:30 AM)

TBH I would not disband an SCTF within range of enemy air at a dot base, except if I feel suicidal. If you advance into an area with dot bases,
recon them. You should do this anyway.

That said, I tend to agree that naval search should at least reveal the presence of ships disbanded at dot bases, I have not really found a
rationale why this is not the case, as a PBY on naval search would possibly also check for natural anchorages on the way.

Will not change though.



LoBaron -> RE: About SCTF disbanding in dot base... (6/20/2012 10:55:22 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kevin_hx

But you can't air attack the ships disbanded in dot base using port attack mission except using bombardment because there is NOT a port in dot base.


I am pretty sure you can port attack dot bases.



Itdepends -> RE: About SCTF disbanding in dot base... (6/20/2012 11:10:52 AM)

Regarding the guerilla tactics- that can be used by both sides at different stages of the war and would represent ships pulling into secluded coves and camouflaging themselves. You'd be brave to do it with anything bigger than a light cruiser though.



kevin_hx -> RE: About SCTF disbanding in dot base... (6/20/2012 11:22:02 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: kevin_hx

But you can't air attack the ships disbanded in dot base using port attack mission except using bombardment because there is NOT a port in dot base.


I am pretty sure you can port attack dot bases.


Really? I don't know. I would play a test.



kevin_hx -> RE: About SCTF disbanding in dot base... (6/20/2012 11:35:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Itdepends

Regarding the guerilla tactics- that can be used by both sides at different stages of the war and would represent ships pulling into secluded coves and camouflaging themselves. You'd be brave to do it with anything bigger than a light cruiser though.


Yes, it do benefit for both sides. Japs are suffered from it at beginning stages of the war firstly. After all, there are many dot bases in DEI that you can't recon them all.



LoBaron -> RE: About SCTF disbanding in dot base... (6/20/2012 12:09:04 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: kevin_hx


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: kevin_hx

But you can't air attack the ships disbanded in dot base using port attack mission except using bombardment because there is NOT a port in dot base.


I am pretty sure you can port attack dot bases.


Really? I don't know. I would play a test.


[img]http://fsfiles.org/flightsimshots/images/925Nam.png[/img]



LoBaron -> RE: About SCTF disbanding in dot base... (7/6/2012 7:01:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
That said, I tend to agree that naval search should at least reveal the presence of ships disbanded at dot bases, I have not really found a
rationale why this is not the case, as a PBY on naval search would possibly also check for natural anchorages on the way.

Will not change though.


Funny how other threads suddently remind you of something you posted.

In this case it ireminded me of a good explanation for why the NavS will not change, and with what kind of complex situations the devs are confronted.


Let me explain, maybe the difficulties faced when modifying existing game mechanisms are understood better then:

Hypothetical solution:

Ok, what to we need to make docked ships visible on a base? Correct, we have to raise the DL of that hex. So this is the approach we
need to follow.

Based on the above I would have suggested to add a dice roll for a chance to increase a bases DL +1 (enough to show the docked ship icon)
when located within a NavS search arc.

Obvious advantage: disbanded ships get detected by NavS missions. The OPs problem is gone.

Now, what for the side effects?

Raising the DL of the base not only magically makes the docking icon appear, but also the LCU icon and the A/C icon.

And the result is: everybody would be running NavS missions in China, Burma, India, Australia. Noone needs recon anymore to actually
find LCUs.

And this is unrealistic. Not per se, but it is unrealistic because, for example, the Japanese player is very much able to base so many recon
squads in China that he gets a realtime mapping of all ground unit movements over the complete landmass, without flying a single recon mission.
Even if the chance for raising the DL is very low. Or detect every hidden LCU on every dot base in the Solomons by simply "passing over it".
Ouch. [X(]


Thought it might be interesting to show how a solution for one end ends up in a huge problem on the other end.



pharmy -> RE: About SCTF disbanding in dot base... (7/6/2012 1:16:42 PM)

Have an HR allowing this only for PT boats, LBs, HDMLs, small supply craft - those did historically hide camouflaged during the day anyway. I don't have this HR in either of my PBEMs, but I would never disband anything larger to hide it. Much better then having HRs though is playing someone who you trust not to do non-IRL things (meaning not non-historical, but highly improbable or impossible). Other then China and payment of pp for land borders, there should be no real season for HRs (I wont conquer central China as my self-imposed rule). One of my Allied opponents just bombed the crap out of Kalidjiti and Palembang because I did not set a CAP (since you always read about how strategic bombing is a no-no, I fell into a lull). But I think its better this way, I said bravo and promptly moved units that should have been sweeping the skies in Burma back to the DEI. As it should be. The Japanese player doesn't want strategic bombing? Three solutions- massive AA, CAPs and conquer yourself out of bomber range.
Disclaimer - I am a JFB and I actually prefer no withdrawals on so the Indian Ocean is also a challenge(by the way that option is pretty tricky as worded), although I do have a soft spot for unlimited R&D in exchange



kevin_hx -> RE: About SCTF disbanding in dot base... (7/14/2012 8:51:31 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron


quote:

ORIGINAL: LoBaron
That said, I tend to agree that naval search should at least reveal the presence of ships disbanded at dot bases, I have not really found a
rationale why this is not the case, as a PBY on naval search would possibly also check for natural anchorages on the way.

Will not change though.


Funny how other threads suddently remind you of something you posted.

In this case it ireminded me of a good explanation for why the NavS will not change, and with what kind of complex situations the devs are confronted.


Let me explain, maybe the difficulties faced when modifying existing game mechanisms are understood better then:

Hypothetical solution:

Ok, what to we need to make docked ships visible on a base? Correct, we have to raise the DL of that hex. So this is the approach we
need to follow.

Based on the above I would have suggested to add a dice roll for a chance to increase a bases DL +1 (enough to show the docked ship icon)
when located within a NavS search arc.

Obvious advantage: disbanded ships get detected by NavS missions. The OPs problem is gone.

Now, what for the side effects?

Raising the DL of the base not only magically makes the docking icon appear, but also the LCU icon and the A/C icon.

And the result is: everybody would be running NavS missions in China, Burma, India, Australia. Noone needs recon anymore to actually
find LCUs.

And this is unrealistic. Not per se, but it is unrealistic because, for example, the Japanese player is very much able to base so many recon
squads in China that he gets a realtime mapping of all ground unit movements over the complete landmass, without flying a single recon mission.
Even if the chance for raising the DL is very low. Or detect every hidden LCU on every dot base in the Solomons by simply "passing over it".
Ouch. [X(]


Thought it might be interesting to show how a solution for one end ends up in a huge problem on the other end.


This is a great explainaiton.
I think the best way to resolve it maybe is NO disbanding in dot base.



Bullwinkle58 -> RE: About SCTF disbanding in dot base... (7/14/2012 4:00:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kevin_hx

This is a great explainaiton.
I think the best way to resolve it maybe is NO disbanding in dot base.


A quick story on how this rule would have affected me.

USN sub escaping the Manila area, gets put on Full speed and accidentally forgetten as it re-bases to PH. In rush of first month ops it makes its way east, only to run out of fuel SW of Midway. System damage of 35 accumulates quickly, when stupid Allied player notices its plight. It won't make PH or Midway without sinking first.

Subs can't do underway replenishment. I order it to French Frigate Shoals, a dot hex. It makes it with 40 system damage and disbands to stop accumulation. I send a tanker from PH. It is unable to refuel with Port=0. The sub is unable to do pierside repairs (no pier.) I can't spare a tender. I unload a bit of fuel, fearing spoilage, and withdraw the tanker.

Needing to get the base to level 1, I send a base force in amphib mode from PH along with some supply. It unloads and begins building. Note that the base is hanging out, completely unprotected, even as the AI makes multiple forays against Midway. After several weeks the port level increases to 1, I form a sub TF, drink some fuel, and send the sub on its way to PH. It makes it and is repaired in nine days, good as new. I also have a semi-useful base at FFS for seaplanes.

Bottom line--with an HR as you propose I'd have lost a sub for nothing, I'd never have built a base I can use, albeit at some risk to me, and the Japanese would have lost a chance to destroy a sub and a base force at zero risk to themselves. Those decisions would have been taken away, and for what?



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.84375