102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ?

102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (Full Version)

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

Message

pavel01 -> 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/10/2021 8:57:10 PM)
Allied Computer. Attack on Pearl Harbour on the 7th produced a 102 Hits to the runway. I decided to take a 2nd Port Attack on the 8th and, to my surprise, the Japanese planes where met by some US planes.... Question, how could they take off with a Runway with 102 Hits ? Also, when setting up the 2nd Japanese Port Attack to Pearl Harbour on the 8th, the Dive Bombers, even though the Carrier still had Torpedoes, had the "Use Torpedoes" in red, while the "Use Bombs" was in green. And, infact, the Bombers only used Bombs on the 2nd Attack, not Torpedoes like during the 1st Attack. What gives ? Did I do anything wrong ? Is there a particular way to reload Torpedoes on the Bombers to use them at the Port Attack ? Thanks.

GetAssista -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/10/2021 9:34:16 PM)
Why would you think that hits are percentages of damage? PH is a large airfield that can take quite some damage before it is closed

btd64 -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/10/2021 9:42:56 PM)
There's a lot of engineers at PH as well as being a large airfield. It's not impossible to launch aircraft. As far as the torpedoes go, historically the Japanese only had enough for one raid AFAIK. Sometimes the PH raids will go without torpedoes. It's a die roll....GP

RADM.Yamaguchi -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/10/2021 10:45:32 PM)
If you split the TB squadrons you might have enough torpedoes to equip 1/3 or 2/3 of the squadron instead of trying to equip the whole squadron with torpedoes. I would imagine that is 3 die rolls instead of 1 but i don't know?

BBfanboy -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 2:34:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: btd64 There's a lot of engineers at PH as well as being a large airfield. It's not impossible to launch aircraft. As far as the torpedoes go, historically the Japanese only had enough for one raid AFAIK. Sometimes the PH raids will go without torpedoes. It's a die roll....GP PH can only be Port attacked with torpedoes on turn 1. Its hardwired in the game. You can attack TFs with torps or just use bombs on the anchored ships.

btd64 -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 2:44:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BBfanboy quote: ORIGINAL: btd64 There's a lot of engineers at PH as well as being a large airfield. It's not impossible to launch aircraft. As far as the torpedoes go, historically the Japanese only had enough for one raid AFAIK. Sometimes the PH raids will go without torpedoes. It's a die roll....GP PH can only be Port attacked with torpedoes on turn 1. Its hardwired in the game. You can attack TFs with torps or just use bombs on the anchored ships. That's it. I couldn't remember [:D]....GP

pavel01 -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 7:05:00 AM)
So, on another note, how much are Airfield Bombings effective to incapacitate the ability of a Base to fly up their Planes ? I mean, one would imagine that, in order to help an attack, it would help to hit an Airfield and its RUnway so that all the planes there would then be incapacitated to fly when a 2nd Run comes.. Yet, it seems to me, that Bases can still fly their planes regardless of the hits that the Runway may have taken ? Or is there a "magic" number that, if an Airfield/Runway is hit with, THEN all planes in that Base are effectively Landed and incapacitated to take off? Otherwise, it would look to me that Bombing Airfield/Runways would be just a waste of Bombs if Airplanes could take off no matter the damage that the Runway has taken...

Yaab -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 7:36:21 AM)
Well, in scen001, PH has level 10 airfield. Think of it as a base with 10 airfields, and not a base with one huge airfield. See how many arfields there were in Port Moresby during WW2 (single hex in WITP:AE) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Moresby_Airfield_Complex How do you knock out seven airfields in a single day?

Platoonist -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 8:18:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pavel01 So, on another note, how much are Airfield Bombings effective to incapacitate the ability of a Base to fly up their Planes ? Completely shutting down an airfield for a while is a lot simpler if it is smaller and not well stocked with engineers and supplies. However, any airfield with diggers, dozers and supplies is going to be able to fill in the craters at some point and get back into action within days, if not a day. If you can isolate a base from re-supply while bombing it, that helps slow down the airfield's ability to bounce back. Naval bombardments in addition to aerial ones help too, although as noted a larger base is always harder to wreck than a small one. So, completely incapacitating an airfield over time takes something similar to what Operation Cartwheel did to the Japanese air base at Rabaul. Isolating it while applying bombing pressure on a somewhat continual basis.

Alfred -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 8:41:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pavel01 So, on another note, how much are Airfield Bombings effective to incapacitate the ability of a Base to fly up their Planes ? I mean, one would imagine that, in order to help an attack, it would help to hit an Airfield and its RUnway so that all the planes there would then be incapacitated to fly when a 2nd Run comes.. Yet, it seems to me, that Bases can still fly their planes regardless of the hits that the Runway may have taken ? Or is there a "magic" number that, if an Airfield/Runway is hit with, THEN all planes in that Base are effectively Landed and incapacitated to take off? Otherwise, it would look to me that Bombing Airfield/Runways would be just a waste of Bombs if Airplanes could take off no matter the damage that the Runway has taken... Read s.9.4.1 of the manual. Alfred

pavel01 -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 9:20:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Yaab Well, in scen001, PH has level 10 airfield. Think of it as a base with 10 airfields, and not a base with one huge airfield. See how many arfields there were in Port Moresby during WW2 (single hex in WITP:AE) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Moresby_Airfield_Complex How do you knock out seven airfields in a single day? Well, considering how Airplanes "need" a lengthy runway on order to get sufficient velocity to take off, and considering how level bombs create quite a hole, across which a plane cannot "run through" in order to take off, if even just a few bombs were to hit a runway around half way, or even 1/3 or 3/4 of its length, eve if the rest of the length of the runway was untouched, chances are that the remaining unscated length without holes in it could not be enough for a plane to take off... Sure, more then 1 runway can be present at a higher level Airfield but, with 102 hits, one would imagine that they would have hit multiple runways of that Airfield, not just one, thus making them unusable... I mean, considering the big hole that a Bomb can produce, say that 10 hits would be enough to render 1 single runway incapacitated, then 100+ hits should well put out or order some 10 runways, shouldn't they ?

pavel01 -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 9:22:41 AM)
quote: However, any airfield with diggers, dozers and supplies is going to be able to fill in the craters at some point and get back into action within days, if not a day. Well, that sure makes sense but, too bad that in the game we are only able to run 1 attack every 24 hours (turns last 1 day...) therefore, if the engineers and diggers were to be able to fill the runways holes by the following turn, this would mean that it would never be possible to incapacitate an Airfield with bombing to prevent its Airplanes to take off....

castor troy -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 9:26:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pavel01 quote: ORIGINAL: Yaab Well, in scen001, PH has level 10 airfield. Think of it as a base with 10 airfields, and not a base with one huge airfield. See how many arfields there were in Port Moresby during WW2 (single hex in WITP:AE) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_Moresby_Airfield_Complex How do you knock out seven airfields in a single day? Well, considering how Airplanes "need" a lengthy runway on order to get sufficient velocity to take off, and considering how level bombs create quite a hole, across which a plane cannot "run through" in order to take off, if even just a few bombs were to hit a runway around half way, or even 1/3 or 3/4 of its length, eve if the rest of the length of the runway was untouched, chances are that the remaining unscated length without holes in it could not be enough for a plane to take off... Sure, more then 1 runway can be present at a higher level Airfield but, with 102 hits, one would imagine that they would have hit multiple runways of that Airfield, not just one, thus making them unusable... I mean, considering the big hole that a Bomb can produce, say that 10 hits would be enough to render 1 single runway incapacitated, then 100+ hits should well put out or order some 10 runways, shouldn't they ? In the game you'd probably need 3-400 of the 250kg bomb hits to close the airfield(s) at Pearl. Mind you CAP will fly from a more damaged airfield than offensive strikes. As already mentioned, a bomb hit isn't 1% damage on the runway, it depends on the bomb, the size of the airfield and the usual die roll. I think it's not modelled bad, runways were hard to knock out and not that hard to repair. Just look at the Battle of Britain, the Germans hardly knocked out an airfield for longer than a day or two, if they even managed to do that. Real life wasn't about making the runway unusable it was knocking out the facilities of the airfield and destroying aircraft at the airfield.

Platoonist -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 9:30:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pavel01 Well, considering how Airplanes "need" a lengthy runway on order to get sufficient velocity to take off, and considering how level bombs create quite a hole, across which a plane cannot "run through" in order to take off, if even just a few bombs were to hit a runway around half way, or even 1/3 or 3/4 of its length, eve if the rest of the length of the runway was untouched, chances are that the remaining unscated length without holes in it could not be enough for a plane to take off... Sure, more then 1 runway can be present at a higher level Airfield but, with 102 hits, one would imagine that they would have hit multiple runways of that Airfield, not just one, thus making them unusable... I mean, considering the big hole that a Bomb can produce, say that 10 hits would be enough to render 1 single runway incapacitated, then 100+ hits should well put out or order some 10 runways, shouldn't they ? As Alfred suggested, I would read page 214 of the manual if you want to see the details of airfield damage. Runway as well as service damage is discussed there.

pavel01 -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 9:32:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Read s.9.4.1 of the manual. Alfred Thank you. That Section says : quote: 9.4.1 AIRFIELD DAMAGE Airfields can suffer two types of damage: runway and service (both ranging from 0 to 100 percent). It is easier to damage smaller airfields than larger airfields, but once damaged larger airfields take longer to repair. Less damage to the runway is required at smaller airfields in order to prevent aircraft from being able to take off and land than at larger airfields. Airfield service damage in combination with the availability of aviation support determines the number of aircraft that can be repaired and may limit the number of planes that may be operational (ready, not in reserve). Airfield service damage can also impact the morale of pilots. Runway damage can limit the air operations at a base. A strike Mission may only be launched from a base with runway damage less than 20+(Airfield Size 5). Patrol and CAP Missions may only be launched from bases with runway damage less than 50+(Airfield Size 5). Damage can also impact the receiving of air replacements and upgrades. Now, since I can only read the Combat Report, not really see the enemy Base to view what damage anything might have, those 102 Runway hits that I read in my combat Report mean a damage to the "Airfield" of 102 % ? I would think not, as it would make no sense to have anything be reported over 100%... Therefore, since the Manual says that Patrol and CAP Missions (I assume defensive) can only be launched from bases with runway damage less then 50+ (Airfield Size 5), does this mean, since Pearl Harbour has an Airfield Size 10(7), that my 102 Runway damage to it in the 1st Strike, would have made it NOT possible for any Defensive Plane to take off during my 2nd Attack at the Port on December 8th ? I mean, if 50+ Hits stop planes on an Airfield Size 5, I need to imagine that 100+ Hits would stop likewise planes on an Airfiels Size *10, wouldn't they ? If so, I still do not understand why, with a Runway damage of 102 Hits on December 7th, on December 8th I saw US planes taking off in response to my second Air strike on Pearl Harbour Port... Any ideas ?

Platoonist -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 9:44:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pavel01 Well, that sure makes sense but, too bad that in the game we are only able to run 1 attack every 24 hours (turns last 1 day...) therefore, if the engineers and diggers were to be able to fill the runways holes by the following turn, this would mean that it would never be possible to incapacitate an Airfield with bombing to prevent its Airplanes to take off.... Completely shutting down an airfield with shells and bombs if not followed up was almost always a temporary affair, which is something the game strives to emulate. A good example is the famous bombardment of Henderson Field on October 13th 1942. The Japanese brought up battleships Kongo and Haruna to plaster the airfield for 80 minutes. Henderson Field was very nearly put out of action, with over half its aircraft destroyed, and the Japanese used the disruption of American air cover to bring in supplies and reinforcements for their next attack. However, the Americans managed to get the airfield operating and some planes in the air the next day, which wrecked three beached Japanese transports. Three others were driven off before they could unload all their supplies. Incapacitating an airfield is not impossible, but difficult.

Uncivil Engineer -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 9:49:56 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pavel01 quote: ORIGINAL: Alfred Read s.9.4.1 of the manual. Alfred Thank you. That Section says : quote: 9.4.1 AIRFIELD DAMAGE Airfields can suffer two types of damage: runway and service (both ranging from 0 to 100 percent). It is easier to damage smaller airfields than larger airfields, but once damaged larger airfields take longer to repair. Less damage to the runway is required at smaller airfields in order to prevent aircraft from being able to take off and land than at larger airfields. Airfield service damage in combination with the availability of aviation support determines the number of aircraft that can be repaired and may limit the number of planes that may be operational (ready, not in reserve). Airfield service damage can also impact the morale of pilots. Runway damage can limit the air operations at a base. A strike Mission may only be launched from a base with runway damage less than 20+(Airfield Size 5). Patrol and CAP Missions may only be launched from bases with runway damage less than 50+(Airfield Size 5). Damage can also impact the receiving of air replacements and upgrades. Now, since I can only read the Combat Report, not really see the enemy Base to view what damage anything might have, those 102 Runway hits that I read in my combat Report mean a damage to the "Airfield" of 102 % ? I would think not, as it would make no sense to have anything be reported over 100%... Therefore, since the Manual says that Patrol and CAP Missions (I assume defensive) can only be launched from bases with runway damage less then 50+ (Airfield Size 5), does this mean, since Pearl Harbour has an Airfield Size 10(7), that my 102 Runway damage to it in the 1st Strike, would have made it NOT possible for any Defensive Plane to take off during my 2nd Attack at the Port on December 8th ? I mean, if 50+ Hits stop planes on an Airfield Size 5, I need to imagine that 100+ Hits would stop likewise planes on an Airfiels Size *10, wouldn't they ? If so, I still do not understand why, with a Runway damage of 102 Hits on December 7th, on December 8th I saw US planes taking off in response to my second Air strike on Pearl Harbour Port... Any ideas ? Also note that base repair occurs near the end of the sequence of play (ie. AFTER air bombardment) so that given enough engineers a damaged airfield could be significantly repaired BEFORE the next turn. See Section 3.0 on p. 33 of the manual. And Pearl Harbor has LOTS of engineers.

Alfred -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 9:55:23 AM)
No, no, no. There are some basic game concepts you are not grasping. 1. A hit does not mean damage was caused. When you drop a bomb the game calls up the relevant hit algorithm to determine if a hit was achieved. You can therefore drop a bomb and not achieve a hit. This is similar to the real life experience of a bomb missing its target. If a hit is registered, then the relevant damage algorithm is called up. You can therefore have a hit where no damage was inflicted, or partial damage was inflicted or the maximum damage value was inflicted. 2. Fog of War applies. You don't know if you actually inflicted 102 "hits". The Combat Report is subject to fog of war. All you know is that many "hits" were achieved. The Combat Report most definitely does not tell how many hits caused damage and how many were duds. This is qll separate from what part of the airfield received the hits. 3. There is a reason why the Recon Mission is in the game. You run recon over the target to get more accurate information on what is there and what your combat actions are achieving. The game concepts trump whatever a player believes should be the case. Alfred

HansBolter -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 10:18:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pavel01 quote: However, any airfield with diggers, dozers and supplies is going to be able to fill in the craters at some point and get back into action within days, if not a day. Well, that sure makes sense but, too bad that in the game we are only able to run 1 attack every 24 hours (turns last 1 day...) therefore, if the engineers and diggers were to be able to fill the runways holes by the following turn, this would mean that it would never be possible to incapacitate an Airfield with bombing to prevent its Airplanes to take off.... Came to this thread late and while it appears most questions have been addressed one point I wanted to make is that more than one attack can be made, and I am not referring to one large coordinated air attack being spread out into dribs and drabs. The second attack that can be made in getting closer to ensuring an airbase complex is shut down is by adding the other dimension of naval bombardment attacks. Obviously, this is only possible against coastal targets.

Ian R -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 10:58:41 AM)
The best way to shut down runways is with BB main armament. Repeatedly, so the engineers don't get ahead of it. The rest is just FOW. sincerely yours, ...

pavel01 -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 12:58:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R The best way to shut down runways is with BB main armament. Repeatedly, so the engineers don't get ahead of it. The rest is just FOW. sincerely yours, ... Are you sure ? Because, according to : Manual Section 3.0, Naval Bombardment comes "before" Base Repair/Construction..... Therefore, if the Base has sufficient engineers, and they are so damn good and fast at fixing Runways, no matter how badly hit that they might be, I do not see how it would ever be possible to put an Airfield "out of Order" for the following Air Combat.... Bottom line is, I get the impression that, as long as there is enough engineers at a Base (how many would be "enough" to replace functionality of even a badly hit Runway/Airport ?), it simply is not possible to stop that Base to put up Airplanes in its defense against an Air Attack to that Base...

Sardaukar -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 1:08:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pavel01 quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R The best way to shut down runways is with BB main armament. Repeatedly, so the engineers don't get ahead of it. The rest is just FOW. sincerely yours, ... Are you sure ? Because, according to : Manual Section 3.0, Naval Bombardment comes "before" Base Repair/Construction..... Therefore, if the Base has sufficient engineers, and they are so damn good and fast at fixing Runways, no matter how badly hit that they might be, I do not see how it would ever be possible to put an Airfield "out of Order" for the following Air Combat.... Bottom line is, I get the impression that, as long as there is enough engineers at a Base (how many would be "enough" to replace functionality of even a badly hit Runway/Airport ?), it simply is not possible to stop that Base to put up Airplanes in its defense against an Air Attack to that Base... It is. It just takes continuous attacks for quite a long time. Allied 4-engined bombers coming daily can close airbases almost permanently. Japan just don't have engineering capacity to repair faster than e.g. 50+ B-17/B-24 etc. can deliver damage. Don't even attempt to think about closing AF for operations with Kido Butai unless it's small/without engineers. They are by nature a raiding force and lack the late war USN Replenishment TFs, so they run out of attack sorties (think those as bombs etc., torpedoes are counted separately) after few days. USN CV TFs in 1944/45 can be devastating to air fields too, mainly because they can rotate TFs and replenish some of the ordnance at sea.

Platoonist -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 1:54:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar It just takes continuous attacks for quite a long time. Allied 4-engined bombers coming daily can close airbases almost permanently. Japan just don't have engineering capacity to repair faster than e.g. 50+ B-17/B-24 etc. can deliver damage. I think most historians would agree that the Allies overwhelmingly won the air campaign over the famous Japanese air complex at Rabaul. Even so, this required constant air strikes against the fortress to negate it as an airbase. Total Japanese losses were something in the neighborhood of 359 aircraft from November 1943 to March 1944. For the group Aircraft-Solomon Islands at Bougainville (AIRSOLS) combat losses were 136 aircraft. Thereafter AIRSOLS continued to stage raids over the fortress, gradually destroying the antiaircraft gun positions and keeping the runways cratered. However, in spite of AIRSOLS' best efforts, the Japanese preserved over half their antiaircraft guns by moving them frequently among prepared positions dug into the ground, and at least one concrete runway was kept usable at all times. Smaller airfields are usually not such a tough nut to crack.

Ian R -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 2:36:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ian R The best way to shut down runways is with BB main armament. Repeatedly, so the engineers don't get ahead of it. The rest is just FOW. sincerely yours, ... quote: Are you sure ? Yes.

Sardaukar -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 2:38:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Platoonist quote: ORIGINAL: Sardaukar It just takes continuous attacks for quite a long time. Allied 4-engined bombers coming daily can close airbases almost permanently. Japan just don't have engineering capacity to repair faster than e.g. 50+ B-17/B-24 etc. can deliver damage. I think most historians would agree that the Allies overwhelmingly won the air campaign over the famous Japanese air complex at Rabaul. Even so, this required constant air strikes against the fortress to negate it as an airbase. Total Japanese losses were something in the neighborhood of 359 aircraft from November 1943 to March 1944. For the group Aircraft-Solomon Islands at Bougainville (AIRSOLS) combat losses were 136 aircraft. Thereafter AIRSOLS continued to stage raids over the fortress, gradually destroying the antiaircraft gun positions and keeping the runways cratered. However, in spite of AIRSOLS' best efforts, the Japanese preserved over half their antiaircraft guns by moving them frequently among prepared positions dug into the ground, and at least one concrete runway was kept usable at all times. Smaller airfields are usually not such a tough nut to crack. Bergerud's "Fire in the Sky" gives pretty good picture of things, for those interested. https://www.amazon.com/Fire-Sky-Air-South-Pacific/dp/081332985X Michael John Claringbould has quite detailed series of publications about South Pacific air war. Haven't read them, but reviews are good.

fcooke -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 5:38:44 PM)
I think you could bombard Pearl with everything the IJN has and not shut it down. And as a previous poster mentioned, even a 2 BB drubbing of Henderson did not keep it out of action, and it was a pretty small airfield at the time.

Moltrey -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 8:12:47 PM)
Pavel01: From one (relatively) new player to another - You really need to: 1). Check your expectations baggage at the WITP:AE "door". Tactical thinking and logic breakdowns in a Grand Strategic game rarely pan out like you think they should. 2). Remind yourself every time you sit down and start up the game that you are Admiral Nimitz (more or less). You have VERY little control over outcomes once the hounds of war are released. Which, I should add, is the way it SHOULD BE. 3). Learn to accept that even with AE being the "2nd Edition", the Devs still had to make many decisions as to how detailed and accurate the game could be. Compromises were made. Some things were never finished and never will be. 4). Yes, it stinks, but realize that with all the warts it has, WITP:AE is still by far the best simulation of the Pacific War available. 5). While there are a lot of things in AE I would like to see added or completed, there is no other competition at this level of detail and immersion. I find it a very rewarding game that requires a hefty sacrifice in time and mindset in order to appreciate fully. You can get there too, just don't let your preconceived notions ruin it for you.

HansBolter -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 8:37:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moltrey Pavel01: From one (relatively) new player to another - You really need to: 1). Check your expectations baggage at the WITP:AE "door". Tactical thinking and logic breakdowns in a Grand Strategic game rarely pan out like you think they should. 2). Remind yourself every time you sit down and start up the game that you are Admiral Nimitz (more or less). You have VERY little control over outcomes once the hounds of war are released. Which, I should add, is the way it SHOULD BE. 3). Learn to accept that even with AE being the "2nd Edition", the Devs still had to make many decisions as to how detailed and accurate the game could be. Compromises were made. Some things were never finished and never will be. 4). Yes, it stinks, but realize that with all the warts it has, WITP:AE is still by far the best simulation of the Pacific War available. 5). While there are a lot of things in AE I would like to see added or completed, there is no other competition at this level of detail and immersion. I find it a very rewarding game that requires a hefty sacrifice in time and mindset in order to appreciate fully. You can get there too, just don't let your preconceived notions ruin it for you. This is some of the best advice you could ever get. As I guy who started wargaming on board games in the 70's it took me years to understand the structure and nuance of land combat. I had HUGE expectations regarding Combat Odds. After all, just about every wargame I had ever played had relied upon the odds to determine the combat results. In this game, the combat results (meaning casualties taken) are determined by the organic devices of the LCUs firing back and forth at each other. The ODDS shown in the Combat Report are only calculated AFTER the firing is done and casualties are taken and is are only used to determine if forts are reduced and if retreats are forced. Took years and years for me to fully accept. Now, I simply love the nuances of land combat. The need to monitor and judge morale, disruption and fatigue, when to attack, when to rest. How and where to recover disablements. How to plan and execute successful invasions, especially against atolls. All things that are grasped and mastered through repeated experimentation. You can come here for all the advice you want, but there is no substitute for logging hours of gameplay.

pavel01 -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 9:23:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moltrey Pavel01: From one (relatively) new player to another - You really need to: 1). Check your expectations baggage at the WITP:AE "door". Tactical thinking and logic breakdowns in a Grand Strategic game rarely pan out like you think they should. 2). Remind yourself every time you sit down and start up the game that you are Admiral Nimitz (more or less). You have VERY little control over outcomes once the hounds of war are released. Which, I should add, is the way it SHOULD BE. 3). Learn to accept that even with AE being the "2nd Edition", the Devs still had to make many decisions as to how detailed and accurate the game could be. Compromises were made. Some things were never finished and never will be. 4). Yes, it stinks, but realize that with all the warts it has, WITP:AE is still by far the best simulation of the Pacific War available. 5). While there are a lot of things in AE I would like to see added or completed, there is no other competition at this level of detail and immersion. I find it a very rewarding game that requires a hefty sacrifice in time and mindset in order to appreciate fully. You can get there too, just don't let your preconceived notions ruin it for you. Thank you for the good advice. Indeed, it is not an easy task when having to look at the "Grand" picture and not at single battles... And because of that, I think that the incapacitating of the US fleet in Pearl Harbour as much as possible is quite important for Japanese chances to do well in the War.... Clearly, the main priority of the Japanese is that to capture more Resources and Oil sources as possible so as to strengthen their industry and production.... and crippling the US fleet as much as possible, would therefore buy them time to reach such a goal in Asia.... The US fleet in Hawaii, if not sufficiently damaged, could quite seriously cause problems to the Japanese expansion plans in Asia.... That is why I was trying to keep bombing Pearl Harbour also on the 8th, to make sure to damage as much as possible of the US fleet so that I could have had more time to handle the expansion in Asia....

BBfanboy -> RE: 102 Runway Hits.... shouldn't it stop planes from taking off ? (4/11/2021 9:42:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pavel01 quote: ORIGINAL: Moltrey Pavel01: From one (relatively) new player to another - You really need to: 1). Check your expectations baggage at the WITP:AE "door". Tactical thinking and logic breakdowns in a Grand Strategic game rarely pan out like you think they should. 2). Remind yourself every time you sit down and start up the game that you are Admiral Nimitz (more or less). You have VERY little control over outcomes once the hounds of war are released. Which, I should add, is the way it SHOULD BE. 3). Learn to accept that even with AE being the "2nd Edition", the Devs still had to make many decisions as to how detailed and accurate the game could be. Compromises were made. Some things were never finished and never will be. 4). Yes, it stinks, but realize that with all the warts it has, WITP:AE is still by far the best simulation of the Pacific War available. 5). While there are a lot of things in AE I would like to see added or completed, there is no other competition at this level of detail and immersion. I find it a very rewarding game that requires a hefty sacrifice in time and mindset in order to appreciate fully. You can get there too, just don't let your preconceived notions ruin it for you. Thank you for the good advice. Indeed, it is not an easy task when having to look at the "Grand" picture and not at single battles... And because of that, I think that the incapacitating of the US fleet in Pearl Harbour as much as possible is quite important for Japanese chances to do well in the War.... Clearly, the main priority of the Japanese is that to capture more Resources and Oil sources as possible so as to strengthen their industry and production.... and crippling the US fleet as much as possible, would therefore buy them time to reach such a goal in Asia.... The US fleet in Hawaii, if not sufficiently damaged, could quite seriously cause problems to the Japanese expansion plans in Asia.... That is why I was trying to keep bombing Pearl Harbour also on the 8th, to make sure to damage as much as possible of the US fleet so that I could have had more time to handle the expansion in Asia.... In the game, all kinds of resources are abstracted into the term Resources. There are plenty of Resources close to Japan on Hokkaido, Sakhalin and from Asia via Korea. There is no need to ship resources from the DEI/SRA. IRL, things like latex sap for rubber and bauxite ore for aluminum were not available anywhere near Japan so those kinds of resources were shipped in from a distance. But you don't need to waste the fuel hauling Resources long distances in the game.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.359375