RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945



Message

Larz6235 -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (8/4/2004 1:01:21 AM)

Since I'm not a expert, just some guy who likes to play WitP, Ok. maybe the map isn't 100% accurate. So what.

Did the IJ invade Darwin or any base in Austrialia? I know, I know, just because they didn't doesn't mean it couldn't ahve been done. The way it is now, the Allies can't really use Darwin for that much early anyway. For that matter anywhere, except PH. I'm even beginning to question that. Bringing supplies in and baseing outdated aircraft there, or maybe the Flush Deckers. Lots of movement but no real offensive power.

But what about the playablility factor. It's a check in the back of the IJ mind that here's a base I should be concerned about or not as Mog has suggested. Sure if you were lucky and pulled back all available forces and concentrated in Darwin then what. Sit there while IJ LBA bombed them into the ground. Wait for them to invade and destroy them anyway. Not real Historical. Did the IJ even bomb Darwin?

But if you allow the Allies to use it to slow the IJ rampage through out the early game, the Allies don't stand a chance. Might as well call it IJ Steamroller.

I'm playing Scen15, and the IJ are literially unstoppable. I form my defensive lines and get smacked all around. Hong Kong falls, Shortly there after Singapore and Malaya. Then Borneo. Most of the PI, then Java. Rangoon. The PI. I had 42000 troop in singapore to IJ 92000. It fell. I had 42000 troops in Rangoon against IJ 87000 and it fell. I at least didn't lose those units they retreated. PI 77,000 troops to his 87000. Sure if fell late 42. But it fell. As I expected. Along with all those other cities.

If the IJ want to take Darwin from me in early 42' there isn't much I can do to stop them except, load it up with planes and LCU and hope that it holds.

They have the supply lines. Oil and Supplies from Java and Boreno etc. The KB. The experinced troops. I only want to slow and delay.

As I have yet to play a PBEM game, not sure how another human will act. But listening to Mog. I wouldn't stand a chance.

Just my two cents.

I love the game.



Blackhorse -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (8/4/2004 1:45:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Larz6235

Since I'm not a expert, just some guy who likes to play WitP, Ok. maybe the map isn't 100% accurate. So what. . .

If the IJ want to take Darwin from me in early 42' there isn't much I can do to stop them except, load it up with planes and LCU and hope that it holds.

They have the supply lines. Oil and Supplies from Java and Boreno etc. The KB. The experinced troops. I only want to slow and delay.


Hi Larz,

I think you answered your own question. With the current map, the Allies can build up rapidly in Darwin by sending in troops over the ahistorical rail net. The Japanese can invade, and might very well drive out the defenders, given the quality edge of their forces in the early months. Then, utilizing the ahistorical rail net for rapid movement and easy supply, the Japanese Army can drive through the outback for decisive Corps-sized battles against the allies in Perth or Alice Springs.

This would all be very exciting -- (not that I would recommend this strategy to the Japanese!) -- but of course, in real life, it would have been impossible. And that's the main reason for 'fixing' the map of Australia -- to allow the player to do what his counterparts could have done. If the game allows you to do things that they couldn't do, then its just a game, not a simulation.

An accurate transportation net -- like akbrown's proposal -- would recreate the challenge the Australians faced in getting enough men and equipment out to defend the northwest; would illustrate why the Japanese had no burning desire to invade there, as there was no militarily viable land route from Darwin to the south or the east; and would force the allies to run ships into Darwin, through Japanese air cover, if they wanted to build it into an uber-base for attacks into the DEI in late 1942 or 1943.

Any map change that increases historical accuracy, and improves gameplay is well-worth considering, IMHO.


Oh, and by the way, yes, the Japanese did bomb Darwin -- frequently.



stubby331 -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (8/4/2004 5:32:28 AM)

Found some great excerpts from published works which outline the sort of effort required to supply Darwin WITHOUT A DIRECT RAIL CONNECTION from Alice springs. As discussed, the AHISTORICAL rail link just makes it too easy.


Excerpt from "Outback Corridor":

When a train arrived at Alice Springs from the south all troops and Allied Works Council workers going north by Army convoy were taken to the Staging Camp for an overnight stay before proceeding on next day. The contents of freight trains were off-loaded onto army transports (in the early days 3 ton trucks - Chevrolets, D3 Internationals, later semi-trailers and from 1944 on to Mack-Lanover 10 ton diesels and trailers) for movement north. Normally two platoons of 30 vehicles cleared a freight train load, depending on the vehicle used and type of freight. When the vehicles were loaded they returned to their Army Transport unit lines and parked overnight ready for departure next morning. The train, having been cleared, returned south to Terowie to receive another trans-shipment of supplies and equipment.


Excerpt from "Convoys Up The Track":

Every day three convoys, usually of thirty vehicles, left Alice Springs at forty five minute intervals from 0600 hrs to travel north. Daily, six convoys left the staging camps at Barrow Creek, Banka Banka, Elliot and Larrimah, northward or southward bound. The normal return journey took eight days. The actual turn around time was eleven days, the extra three days being spent in Alice Springs for unloading, vehicle maintenance, military training, washing clothes, collection of pay and reloading for the next convoy.


Excerpt from "An Australian Adventure":

During its four years of operation this unit [Darwin Overland Maintenance Force] increased to 8,000 men and over 3,000 vehicles of every shape and size. Once Alice had her teeth into this war business she certainly pulled no punches. In those four years her convoys covered 82,612,196 miles. They transported from her bulk stores 487,197 tons of war materials and supplies. Apart from the unit personnel, her trucks carried 194,852 persons of all ranks. Naturally such colossal transportation was costly. There were 22,427 tyres used to keep this vital life-line going. To keep those trucks moving, Alice poured into their tanks 8,724,270 gallons of petrol and 350,473 gallons of diesel fuel. Under the bonnets went 197,232 gallons of engine and transmission oil and through the grease guns went 77,690 pounds of grease.


Excerpt from "An Australian Adventure":

She [Alice Springs] not only had to transport men, but she had to feed them, provide water for them, install electric light for them, entertain them, and do a host of other things. I know she was blamed for some things she provided, such as flies, mosquitoes, dust, and bog-holes. Some grumbled about cold or her heat, but all admit she certainly gave them the whole works.

In order that Alice would have an adequate water supply to meet any eventuality, forty one bores and five wells were put down in the town area. Local piggeries produced 55,304 pounds of pork, and gardens grew 380,924 pounds of vegetables.
...

The citizens of Alice Springs played a great part through their various social activities and organisations. In June 1941 Griffiths House, which was originally planned as a children's hostel, was opened as a soldiers' and servicemen's club. It continued in this role until the end of the war. Over a million cups of tea were handed out and over half a million postage stamps were sold for letters written on the premises. Other churches also opened their buildings to cater for the boys.



esteban -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (8/4/2004 7:00:24 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stubby331

Local piggeries produced 55,304 pounds of pork...



Is "piggeries" a word? [:)]

More seriously, good information there Stubby



stubby331 -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (8/5/2004 5:03:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: esteban

quote:

ORIGINAL: stubby331

Local piggeries produced 55,304 pounds of pork...



Is "piggeries" a word? [:)]

More seriously, good information there Stubby


Alice Springs and Camelot have a lot in common - both good Pig Country. (have to be a python fan to get that one).

On a more serious note, I'm interested to see how long this thread is left swinging in the breeze (pardon the pun) before we here anymore from the Matrix boys, didnt Mogami say he was going to do some testing on the "Darwin base buildup, all over in the SRA by end 43" thing?



ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (8/6/2004 6:36:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stubby331

quote:

ORIGINAL: esteban

quote:

ORIGINAL: stubby331

Local piggeries produced 55,304 pounds of pork...



Is "piggeries" a word? [:)]

More seriously, good information there Stubby


Alice Springs and Camelot have a lot in common - both good Pig Country. (have to be a python fan to get that one).

On a more serious note, I'm interested to see how long this thread is left swinging in the breeze (pardon the pun) before we here anymore from the Matrix boys, didnt Mogami say he was going to do some testing on the "Darwin base buildup, all over in the SRA by end 43" thing?


I think the Aircraft Upgrade flap has eclipsed this one, now.....and even that one is getting a "no response" from Matrix/2X3....



Top Cat -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (8/11/2004 6:44:44 PM)

Found the following map showing various military establishments along the Darwin - Alice Springs route. Show the railway ending somewhere near "Birdum".

The following link also has interesting info on Airbases throughout Australia. Nearly 50 listed for the NT alone.

Military Airfields In Australia

Cheers
Top Cat

[image]local://upfiles/7480/Hf998329145.jpg[/image]


Also a relevant quote...

At a conference between General George H. Brett and General Casey on 24 Apr 19 42, Casey had talked Brett out of using the Darwin area as major staging area for an expeditionary force into the Indies because the overland supply routes were to weak, nevertheless the chief engineer Gen Casey agreed with the building of the airbases in Northern Territory. (1 May 1945 General Casey's son Lt. Hugh B Casey would join the 808th Engineer Aviation Battalion while the unit was on the Island of Luzon in the Philippines).

With the region diminishing in tactical importance and far from Casey's offices the 808th and 43rd Engineers were largely left on their own devices. By May 1942, the 808th was the best equipped engineer unit in the theatre. The 808th had been working more or less independently since March 1942. Upon receiving orders to build an airfield, the engineers selected sites prepared plans and began construction. By the time higher Headquarters approved plans work was well along.



akbrown -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (8/12/2004 1:40:41 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Top Cat

Found the following map showing various military establishments along the Darwin - Alice Springs route. Show the railway ending somewhere near "Birdum".


Yes, that is an interesting map which I also found some time ago. It shows that there were a lot of airbases built in the top end.

In relation to my suggested map, I ano thinking that it may be better to get rid of the Katherine base and just use Daly Waters, and Darwin itself, as conglomerate bases to represent all of the various airfields built in the area. This is less accurate but requires on less extra base to be added.



jrcar -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (8/12/2004 5:41:10 AM)

And most of those bases were built later in the war.

Cheers

Rob



akbrown -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (8/12/2004 6:48:29 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jrcar

And most of those bases were built later in the war.

Cheers

Rob


That is why I believe that if such bases were added to the game they should start with very low airfield ratings



DrewMatrix -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (8/12/2004 6:48:03 PM)

What is the real problem with the current road/rail net? I realize it is not accurate as to what roads were where, but what is the game-play problem:

That the Allies can get supplies to Darwin too easily
or
That the Allies can get LCUs to Darwin too easily

As I am experiencing it, I have an enormous problem getting LCUs to Darwin because I can't load Aussie LCUs on ships. Were I to want to send one of the LCUs in the Melbourne area to Darwin, say, I would (in real life) likely have used AKs. I had AKs in the south at the start of Scen 15 or 16, but Australia being a restricted command I can't use the AKs so I send them overland. It is taking 3 months to get from Melbourne or Sydney to the North Coast by land.

I don't care as much if the map looks like the real road net, as I care that the ability of the Allies to move stuff around is roughly correct.

If the problem is that supplies keep oozing in to the North Coast Cities (because supplies ooze along any road net) you could fix that with a "broken rail net" i.e. a rail/road connection from Melbourne to Darwin by some route that is, maybe 50 hexes long, 48 of those rail and 2 open country. That way an LCU could get from south to north without taking even longer than the current 3 months or so (it will move 48 of the hexes fast and only 2 slowly) but the supplies won't flow endlessly into Darwin (at least I think that will solve the problem).

I realize this doesn't give IJ subs and aircraft the chance to sink the transports the LCUs are on, but it seems a better compromise than making it take even longer (what do you want? 6 to 12 months walking?) to reposition the Aussie LCUs inside Oz.



moses -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (8/12/2004 7:34:15 PM)

I think you're solution completely solves the problem of the supply net. The supply net has to be made inefficient enough that basing large ground and bomber forces there will be prohibitivly expensive without sea supply. The only thing that concerns me about the current map is that as is Darwin is the "correct" starting point for a attack into the Japanese empire once the allies go over to the offensive, whereas histically the difficulties of supplying northern austrailia rendered this area a backwater.



DrewMatrix -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (8/12/2004 7:38:49 PM)

Actually in my current game (Scen 16, late Jan) Darwin is chockablock with Oil/Resources/Supply/Fuel. I have dumped what I can sneak out from under the noses of the advancince IJ in N. Oz then rush the ships back for more.

The contiguous supply net is letting that stuff get South at the moment.



moses -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (8/12/2004 7:45:08 PM)

Which is also a problem. If you wanted to use that oil you would never have sent it to Darwin where it would have to be trucked all the way across Austrailia before being used. But with the current rail net you can do this and it is efficiently and rapidly tranported whereever it is needed.



DrewMatrix -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (8/12/2004 7:58:20 PM)

Yeah, I agree the Oil/Reource leak is a problem too.

I just don't think fixing the supply problem should make the LCU movement problem even worse.

You seem to be agreeing the problem was not moving LCUs or A/C to the North Coast, but supplying them there.

So maybe the "broken railroad" _will_ help this situation?



moses -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (8/12/2004 8:52:20 PM)

I don't think LCU movment is a significant play balance issue. I have no idea how long it took to march a unit from Brisbane to Darwin. But yes supply is the main issue in my opinion.



akbrown -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (8/13/2004 2:13:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

What is the real problem with the current road/rail net? I realize it is not accurate as to what roads were where, but what is the game-play problem:

That the Allies can get supplies to Darwin too easily
or
That the Allies can get LCUs to Darwin too easily

As I am experiencing it, I have an enormous problem getting LCUs to Darwin because I can't load Aussie LCUs on ships. Were I to want to send one of the LCUs in the Melbourne area to Darwin, say, I would (in real life) likely have used AKs. I had AKs in the south at the start of Scen 15 or 16, but Australia being a restricted command I can't use the AKs so I send them overland. It is taking 3 months to get from Melbourne or Sydney to the North Coast by land.

I don't care as much if the map looks like the real road net, as I care that the ability of the Allies to move stuff around is roughly correct.

If the problem is that supplies keep oozing in to the North Coast Cities (because supplies ooze along any road net) you could fix that with a "broken rail net" i.e. a rail/road connection from Melbourne to Darwin by some route that is, maybe 50 hexes long, 48 of those rail and 2 open country. That way an LCU could get from south to north without taking even longer than the current 3 months or so (it will move 48 of the hexes fast and only 2 slowly) but the supplies won't flow endlessly into Darwin (at least I think that will solve the problem).

I realize this doesn't give IJ subs and aircraft the chance to sink the transports the LCUs are on, but it seems a better compromise than making it take even longer (what do you want? 6 to 12 months walking?) to reposition the Aussie LCUs inside Oz.


I do care, very much, that the map is innacurate. This is supposed to be an historical simulation afterall. Would you care, for example, if the US were given three nonexistent aircraft carriers at the start of each scenario? If so, why?

I admit that I have not actually tested the movement of LCUs across Australia. When I get time I will try it though. According to the manual, engineers move at 90 miles/day on rail and 30 miles/day on road. That means that using my map an engineer unit should take 45 days to get from Melbourne to Darwin (31 hexes of rail and 12 of road). I found one real life example of a land unit moving along this route. Interestingly they did it overland instead of by ship. This excerpt is from the following web page:

Katherine Airfield, NT during WW2

quote:

The 808th Engineer Aviation Battalion arrived at Melbourne aboard the U.S.S Coolidge on 2 February 1942, the first U.S. Army Engineering Unit to arrive in Australia. The 808th initially camped at Camp Darley in Melbourne.

The unit took trains and trucks to Katherine, in the Northern Territory, arriving there 19 - 20 February 1942. On 28 February Company " B" began working on the Katherine Airfield.


So in real life it took 18 days, maybe less. Admittedly using my map that would be slower, but that indicates that perhaps the movement rates in the game may not be completely accurate.

In any case it should not take months to move units to Darwin, either using the original map or my own. if that is happening them I have overlooked something, the manual is wrong, or something is not working properly? When I get some time I will test it.



DrewMatrix -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (8/13/2004 2:19:15 AM)

quote:

In any case it should not take months to move units to Darwin



At the moment I am not at home so I can't look at my game but I told an Aussie LCU to move from Melbourne (I think) to Darwin on turn 1 of Scen 16, ie on 8DEC41. It is now about 18Jan42 (6weeks?). The unit is just north of Alice Springs but not back on the "good road" yet.

My only comment is that to fix the supply-to-Darwin-too-easy problem don't make the LCU-to-Darwin movement much worse.



juliet7bravo -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (9/13/2004 3:31:31 PM)

"Aircraft Upgrade flap"

I've missed that one? What's the issue with AC upgrades?



strawbuk -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (9/13/2004 4:27:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliet7bravo

"Aircraft Upgrade flap"

I've missed that one? What's the issue with AC upgrades?


NO! Lordie no.....[sm=00000007.gif]

Start here http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=68955810

Please only comment when you have read it all and linked links - in about three months time.



rader -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (9/15/2004 5:54:32 AM)

Hey Andrew. You are the guy that made a bunch of maps for wif. I saw them on the net somewhere. I am a huge wiffer (went to the last 3 wifcons). Do you play much wif anymore?

Rader



Andrew Brown -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (9/15/2004 2:07:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: rader

Hey Andrew. You are the guy that made a bunch of maps for wif. I saw them on the net somewhere. I am a huge wiffer (went to the last 3 wifcons). Do you play much wif anymore?

Rader


Yes that is me, but I haven't played WiF for years. I was one of the 'old school' players that didn't like all of the endless addons which, in my view, didn't belong in a strategic game.

Speaking of WiF though - I am toying around with map mods for WitP and I am experimenting with a 'hexdot' system for representing sea hexes ala WiF. Do you or anyone else here think that this sounds like a good idea?



stubby331 -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (10/25/2004 8:25:57 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Beezle

What is the real problem with the current road/rail net? I realize it is not accurate as to what roads were where, but what is the game-play problem:

That the Allies can get supplies to Darwin too easily
or
That the Allies can get LCUs to Darwin too easily

As I am experiencing it, I have an enormous problem getting LCUs to Darwin because I can't load Aussie LCUs on ships. Were I to want to send one of the LCUs in the Melbourne area to Darwin, say, I would (in real life) likely have used AKs. I had AKs in the south at the start of Scen 15 or 16, but Australia being a restricted command I can't use the AKs so I send them overland. It is taking 3 months to get from Melbourne or Sydney to the North Coast by land.

I don't care as much if the map looks like the real road net, as I care that the ability of the Allies to move stuff around is roughly correct.

If the problem is that supplies keep oozing in to the North Coast Cities (because supplies ooze along any road net) you could fix that with a "broken rail net" i.e. a rail/road connection from Melbourne to Darwin by some route that is, maybe 50 hexes long, 48 of those rail and 2 open country. That way an LCU could get from south to north without taking even longer than the current 3 months or so (it will move 48 of the hexes fast and only 2 slowly) but the supplies won't flow endlessly into Darwin (at least I think that will solve the problem).

I realize this doesn't give IJ subs and aircraft the chance to sink the transports the LCUs are on, but it seems a better compromise than making it take even longer (what do you want? 6 to 12 months walking?) to reposition the Aussie LCUs inside Oz.


Has anyone got any updated opinions/suggestions on this situation?



Andrew Brown -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (10/25/2004 11:00:56 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: stubby331

Has anyone got any updated opinions/suggestions on this situation?


I am not currently playing the game (will do in the near future), but I guess the question is - how long DOES it take for an LCU to get from Melbourne to Darwin in game? I have not tested this but I think I will give it a go...



moses -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (10/25/2004 3:41:20 PM)

I think there was a consensus that this needed to be fixed and so everyone stopped posting on the issue pending some decision by Matrix.

I consider the main issue to be the ease of supplying large air and ground forces in North Austrailia and not speed of LCU movement. Currently it will be easy for allies to make North Austrailia the primary base of ops. for attacks into the DEI once the tide turns. This was not historically possible in my opinion at least without a huge and expensive upgrade in the supply infrastructure.

As far as I am concerned changing one or two rail hexes to trail, or four or five to road, would probably solve the problem.



pasternakski -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (10/25/2004 7:33:02 PM)

I don't know that this has ever been identified as a problem, at least on the level of requiring change.

LCUs on the Australian rail/road net travel about three hexes every two days. They would not be walking (either loaded in rail cars or on trucks). That's 90 miles of motorized or rail travel in 48 hours. Getting from Melbourne to Darwin takes an LCU something like a month as it is.

I agree with moses (I've been hoping to have a chance to say that) that the Allies ought to have significant logistical constraints in building up the west and northwest coast as an offensive base of operations. In my experience (so far limited because I have suspended play pending patch 1.30), it is already very difficult for the Allies to do this and sustain it with needed fuel and supply.

Application of significant amounts of men and materiel, however, should make it possible, though difficult. If, in light of historical circumstances, the judgment is that the Japanese ought to have a fairly easy time of it if they choose to invade an unprepared western Australia, they also ought to have an extremely difficult time if proper defenses are in place. An Allied player who devotes too many resources to an effort in this area is likely to pay the price elsewhere, particularly in the Southwest Pacific area (and maybe SoPac, as well).

I'd hate to see something fixed that isn't really broken (if it isn't really broken, that is). I thought that a lot of the discussion over the Australian map centered on aesthetic considerations and the actual historical state of development of the rail and road net. I don't remember being persuaded that the current representation, for game purposes, is particularly out of line (please note that I said "for game purposes." If we wind up with a game where it is absolutely impossible to defend western Australia, I think we will have gone pretty far afield from history. It has been noted in other contexts that the game moves too fast and allows players to accomplish too much. Imposing further constraints on Allied defensive capabilities in the early war may exacerbate this problem).

I dunno. You tell me.



Andrew Brown -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (10/26/2004 1:52:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: pasternakski
I'd hate to see something fixed that isn't really broken (if it isn't really broken, that is). I thought that a lot of the discussion over the Australian map centered on aesthetic considerations and the actual historical state of development of the rail and road net. I don't remember being persuaded that the current representation, for game purposes, is particularly out of line (please note that I said "for game purposes." If we wind up with a game where it is absolutely impossible to defend western Australia, I think we will have gone pretty far afield from history. It has been noted in other contexts that the game moves too fast and allows players to accomplish too much. Imposing further constraints on Allied defensive capabilities in the early war may exacerbate this problem).

I dunno. You tell me.


You are right - a lot of our criticism has been at the aesthetic level. But it is not just a case of 'aesthetics', it is accuracy. For me, at least, this is extremely important in a game that is supposed to be an accurate representation of the war.

Of course the accuracy must be present in a game-playing level as well as a physical representation level, thus the discussion about supply flow and LCU movement.

Roughly, the possibilities of what happens in the game if the map of Australia is corrected are as follows:

1) Game play becomes more realistic: If this is the case then there is no real argument against making the improvements, other than familiarity with the current innacurate representation.

2) Game play becomes neither more or less realistic: In this case I think the map should still be improved, since it will be better as far as accuracy is concerned. The problem is how high a priority this is.

3) Game play becomes less realistic: In this case there would be more powerful practical reasons for NOT improving the map, but for me the quesstion would then be - WHY does a more accurate representation of the map cause the simulation to be LESS realistic froma gameplay perspective. To me it would indicate that other aspects of the simulation, such as supply flow and LCU movement, were in need of adjustment.



moses -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (10/26/2004 2:19:45 AM)

I think concensus was reached about the third page of this thread near the bottom.

The problem is this. As is there is no constraint on how many aircraft and LCU's that can be based in N. Austrailia. As soon as the allies can establish air parity there is nothing to stop the allies from driving NW into the DEI.

My understanding is that this was impossible. Darwin remained a backwater during the war due to the great difficulty of supplying significant forces in that area. The posts in this thread adressed in some detail the supply effort to Darwin and it appears that it took tremendous effort to supply even the small forces that were historically deployed there.

In the game you cannot prevent players from basing large ground and air forces in the area, however their should be a very high and I think prohibitive supply cost of doing so.

BTW I'm pretty sure N.austrailia could have been easily conquered by Japan any time they desired. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. They likely refrained since there was little of value to them there, The area prezented zero threat due to its precarious supply situation, and taking it would only have pissed the aussies off.



moses -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (10/26/2004 2:24:24 AM)

One other point. While Japan could I think have taken N. Austrailia without much difficulty, the rest of Austrailia is a different matter. But the current map would allow Japan to invade south from Darwin. Given the historical road net this would be truly absurd.



pasternakski -> RE: Can the map of Australia be improved? (10/26/2004 2:46:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

I think concensus was reached about the third page of this thread near the bottom.


Well, I didn't subscribe to it. If it were reached, it would have been a "consensus," by the way.

quote:

The problem is this. As is there is no constraint on how many aircraft and LCU's that can be based in N. Austrailia. As soon as the allies can establish air parity there is nothing to stop the allies from driving NW into the DEI.


Concentration of force for defensive purposes is far different from concentration of force in order to mount an offensive. I am astonished that you would say there is nothing to stop the Allies. The Japanese player ought to know (or suspect and plan accordingly)what is necessary to defend himself in any particular area and ought to be expected to undertake operations to execute that defense. Why else would you play the game? "Well, it was unfair for them to be able to build up and attack me, so I'm picking up my toys and going home."

quote:

BTW I'm pretty sure N.austrailia could have been easily conquered by Japan any time they desired. Someone correct me if I'm wrong. They likely refrained since there was little of value to them there, The area prezented zero threat due to its precarious supply situation, and taking it would only have pissed the aussies off.


Taking of western Australia would have eased the effort needed to conquer all of Australia proper (within the capability of the Japanese to build up places like Darwin and Broome). Yet, as I said before, any major effort directed through this area would have required significant diversion of force from other places, possibly to the detriment of warfighting capability in those areas..

What precarious supply situation? There were no forces at the backs of Japanese invading western Australia by mid-1942. The Australians (and the Americans, for that matter) could have been pissed off or pissed on, but would be powerless to do anything about it if they had not anticipated the danger and prepared for it. What is wrong with allowing base forces to develop bases? If the allocation is wrong, it is up to you, the enemy, to disclose the error through your strategic and operational brilliance (or at least competence) of planning and execution.



Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.107422