Mostly about ground combat (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific



Message


timtom -> Mostly about ground combat (1/30/2003 12:40:12 AM)

- If troop carrying transports are sunk while unloading at an invasion hex, they tend to take the 'mother unit' with them, that is to say 5/126 Inf.Rgt. is unloaded while the 126th is lost with the transport. So you're stuck with the sub-unit, probably amounting to 85% of the total unit strength. It appears (for obvious reasons) that sub-units never receive replacements, but in this case it means that you can never reconstitute the unit.

- It appears to me that disruption caused by air strikes against ground units is a bit OTT, a 100-plane strike causing something like 50-75% disruption to brigade sized unit in jungle terrain. To my ken, big strikes like in the ETO would be needed to produce this effect.

- Ground units lack resilience, it seems. They tend to surrender wholesale to relatively low-odds assaults if there's nowhere to retreat. Thus a hex is cleared after a few weeks at the very most, with no need to mob up. The tenacity of the IJA needn't be elaborated on here. Ground combat in the PTO was more often than not a prolonged slugging match, fx Buna (three months), New Georgia (two months), Guadalcanal (six months), not quick and decisive sallies.

- Ground units other than engineers are at present practically incapable of improving their defensive positions. While obviously a regiment of infantry shouldn't be able to fortify to size 9 overnight, digging in, siting MG's, clearing fields of fire, registring FPF's, stringing a bit of wire etc shouldn't be beyond them either.

- One feature I would really like is for TCS's to be able to pick up troops as well as deliver them. It seems illogical to be that they shouldn't be able to pick up just as well as deliver. This flexibility would also serve tp further underscore this importants of this asset.

- Waypoint, gimme waypoints for TF's...would make life as a barge driver so much easier.

- mutiple tasking for transport TF's...move supplies to X, load unit Y, return.

- I take it for granted that air-dropped mines will be a part of
WitP, but have no idea whether they had a part to play in the theater at hand. Anyone?

- It seems a bit silly that the CAP over Lunga would fiddle while Tulugi is flattened. Would it be possible to have CAP's react to air attacks in adjacent hexes?

- To my mind, a big part of the fun of our hobby is making hard choices in a restricted environment. I would welcome restrictions on avaible fuel and supply, large calibre shells and the introduction of additional supply-categories like aircraft fuel.




tri71669 -> (1/30/2003 12:33:02 PM)

I like your ideas and yes I noticed that Lunga has odd AC behaviour.
Waypoints would be perfect.... issuing a simple set of commands would be helpful but I think at this point unlikely... anyone have more info?




Drongo -> (1/30/2003 4:01:20 PM)

Posted by timtom
[QUOTE]- I take it for granted that air-dropped mines will be a part of WitP, but have no idea whether they had a part to play in the theater at hand. Anyone?
[/QUOTE]

From :
http://www.maxwell.af.mil/au/aul/aupress/SAAS_Theses/Chilstrom/chilstrom.pdf

[QUOTE]
The Australians, influenced by Britain's experience with aerial minelaying, proved to be enthusiastic partners. In contrast, the U.S. Fifth Air Force flew only a single B-24 minelaying mission from Port Moresby in June 1943. Commander Quimby stated that Lieutenant General George Kenney, MacArthur's air commander, "had a poor opinion of mining and was unwilling to spare planes for mining if bombing was at all possible." Such a view typified that of most air commanders unfamiliar with aerial mining. Also, Kenney's light and medium bombers were already successful at destroying ships, and the results of direct aerial attacks were easier to assess than the often unseen effects of mines.

Initially flying from Australian bases at Darwin and Cairns, then from captured island airfields, three squadrons of RAAF PBY-5 Catalinas laid mines in key enemy harbors in the Southwest Pacific. Australian aerial mining began April 22, 1943 when eight aircraft laid sixteen magnetic mines at Kavieng, New Ireland. Those mines, and others at Lorengau in the Admiralty Islands, convinced the Japanese to abandon fleet achorages there after mines sank five ships and damaged seven others.

In August 1943 the RAAF flew over 1,000 miles to attack the headquarters for Japan's Second Southern Expeditionary Fleet at Surabaya. Their mines sank seven ships, and damaged eleven. On this, and other, long-range flights, the Catalinas extended their reach by refueling with U.S. Navy seaplane tenders on the return route. For the next two years the Australians flew missions throughout the Netherlands East Indies, including New Guinea, Halmahera, Celebes, Java, and Borneo. Additionally, in 1944, they laid mines to support amphibious landings in the Carolines, Marshalls, and Philippine Islands. Ultimately the RAAF extended their reach as far north as the Chinese coast, while still mining all major harbors in the East Indies.

The PBY-5 Catalinas used by the RAAF were amphibious aircraft that provided good results. The aircraft was well suited to minelaying, with long range and a payload of 2,000-4,000 pounds. Out of 1,130 successful sorties that laid 2,498 mines, the Australians lost nine aircraft, a 0.8 percent loss rate. Altogether, the postwar U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey estimated these mines sank 90 ships totalling 250,000 tons, or approximately 40 percent of Japanese losses in the Netherlands East Indies.[/QUOTE]

From a UV point of view, it was pretty much an all Aussie affair (starting in April '43). How Matrix/2x3 would incorporate it, would be interesting. Do they consider introducing it at all (it does seem to have been effective)? Should any allied squadron be able to do it or just the RAAF Catalinas? Should it start from April '43 or whenever a player wants?




Deathifier -> (1/30/2003 4:28:00 PM)

I like the ideas, I just have a small comment on one of them:

quote:

It seems a bit silly that the CAP over Lunga would fiddle while Tulugi is flattened. Would it be possible to have CAP's react to air attacks in adjacent hexes?

It's possible, however you'd have to spot the attack early enough on radar to give the fighters time to fly over there and get into position.

Also it'd reduce the level of CAP at Lunga, if not remove most of it (not all aircraft would go, as those in the air at the time may not have enough fuel and would therefore stay behind), which then leaves it open for an air attack (the attacking bombers could change their target if they knew ;) ).

I think for simplicity it should be left as-is, if you want protection over an adjacent Hex you set a flight group to LRCAP over it.

Similar issues come to mind if you apply the same line of thought to sea-based cap from carriers, or LRCAP from one location to another - should it wander off to protect the ships in adjacent hexes from attack?

No, CAP is "Protect where you are based", and LRCAP is "Protect this thing instead", the logistics of making CAP protect adjacent hexes is likely to be too complex for what it's worth - there are just too many situations and too much ambiguity for an automated system to handle (e.g. There are two attacks comming in at adjacent hexes, where does my CAP go?) :/

- Deathifier




tri71669 -> (1/30/2003 10:08:21 PM)

Yep, that's probably a good accounting of why AC on regular CAP stays in its area... otherwise you might have CAP running all around the map where you can't ever get a concentrtion of anything because its been peicemealed out to reacting to everything. But LRCAP gives it a more open response.




timtom -> (1/30/2003 11:15:07 PM)

Hmm...point taken, Mr. D, it's a minor issue and would probably do more harm then good. All the same, I just handed back a copy of the officiel US history of the Guadalcanal campaign, so I can't quote any, but the gist of it is that incoming strikes would be spotted by coastwatchers and/or radar pickets, giving ample warning, often enough to give shipping the time to make a tactical withdrawal. But obviously there would be no way of knowing the exact target of the inbound strike, and in any case fighters would be scrambled to intercept over the Slot. Likewise I don't know of any examples of a IJN TF getting the drop on a transport TF (Savo nonwithstanding) or the people at Henderson didn't have time to at lest do something...find a hole or some such, as they would generally have a few hours notice. The "problem" is, methinks, that a game like UV doesn't nor shouldn't model every minute detail within the 12-hour turns.




timtom -> (1/30/2003 11:17:03 PM)

Uhh...and thanks for the info, Drongo, highly interesting link!




bradfordkay -> (1/31/2003 2:55:07 AM)

Timtom, the game interface work around for multitasking transport TFs is to set their homebase to their destination. You don't have the advantage of not having to pay attention - you will have to give the orders to load - but you don't have to worry about the TF leaving before you get to give the orders to load. Awww... You have probably already figured that one out...

Waypoints would be nice. Right now far too many of my TFs are under human control so I can route them around known sub activity.




timtom -> (1/31/2003 5:34:48 AM)

Probably the one thing that I like best and respect most about the UV game design is that you have to micromanage supplies, and as I above, I for one would welcome more. Grigsby could easily have abstracted this all important aspect of modern war because it's "boring" and lacks "general appeal". So more power to them. That having been said, in a perfect world I wouldn't mind seeing the numbers of left-clicks cut down a bit. I'm thinking ahead to WitP here too. I no literally nothing about programming, and it might cause a nightmare or be more trouble than it's worth, I don't no.




timtom -> (1/31/2003 5:38:22 AM)

That's KNOW, not NO. Jesus, where's my spelling gone? 'scuse me while I just get my brain out of the fishtank. Too many late nights playing UV...




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2