Ground combats too quick (Full Version)

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



Message

Jim D Burns -> Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 4:19:27 PM)

I mentioned this before but the thread appears to have died without comment due to the busy message board. Is anyone else struck by the fact that ground combat in the game is far too quickly resolved?

If you have two identical units in clear terrain without forts, then the attacker will always win on day one of the combat if he simply shock attacks (assault values are doubled for shock attacks). I cannot for the life of me understand why the attacker is favored so heavily in this game. WWII combats usually required at a minimum 3-1 odds or better to launch a successful assault, I can think of no examples where 1-1 odds were always victorious.

I do understand the need to simulate Japans early expansion, but how many AAR’s have talked about the 'titanic' [8|] two day struggle to capture Bataan or Singapore. I mean common, these were some of the worst case tactical situations possible for the defenders and they still managed to hold out for months historically. Why is no one worried about how quickly these locations seem to fall in every game discussed so far?

How on earth will Japan be able to hold out for 4 years after their initial expansion if each battle only takes a few days to resolve? Combat in the Pacific was a grueling attrition war that sometimes lasted for months. I see no way to get any disputed hex to last for more than maybe a week with our current rules.

If the defender has 9 forts it may take about 5-9 days for the attacker to reduce those forts, and then boom it’s all over. Defensive advantage is non-existent in the current combat system, as long as the attacker uses airpower and costal bombardments then the defenders will probably give up within a couple days of fighting.

If some people prefer simple and quick ground combats, then how about giving those of us who wish to see historically long attrition campaigns, a game options toggle that increases the 2-1 victory rule to 5-1 or even 8-1. It would be all that is required to extend the ground combats from a few days to a few weeks or months. We may even see some Japanese units forced to withdraw and rebuild after the PI or Malaya campaigns, or the same for the 1st Marines after Guadalcanal.

Jim



AmiralLaurent -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 6:00:30 PM)

quote:



I mentioned this before but the thread appears to have died without comment due to the busy message board. Is anyone else struck by the fact that ground combat in the game is far too quickly resolved?

If you have two identical units in clear terrain without forts, then the attacker will always win on day one of the combat if he simply shock attacks (assault values are doubled for shock attacks). I cannot for the life of me understand why the attacker is favored so heavily in this game. WWII combats usually required at a minimum 3-1 odds or better to launch a successful assault, I can think of no examples where 1-1 odds were always victorious.

I do understand the need to simulate Japans early expansion, but how many AAR’s have talked about the 'titanic' two day struggle to capture Bataan or Singapore. I mean common, these were some of the worst case tactical situations possible for the defenders and they still managed to hold out for months historically. Why is no one worried about how quickly these locations seem to fall in every game discussed so far?


I totally agree, even if I have not loaded WITP yet, as I am too busy to get addicted yet. But by reading some AARs, I see that ground battles are so quick as in UV and totally unhistorical. I will pointt wo problems:

1) terrain is totally ignored, or so it seems to me. It should give a fort bonus to resist attacks (something like jungle + 1 fort level, hill + 2, mountain + 4 and so on). This fort bonus can't be reduced by engineers of course... or maybe very slowly reduced (as engineers building a path in the mountain to let tanks roll in... not something that is done in one day).

2) there is no limit to troops deploiment in this game. If one soldier attacks 100 000 enemy men, all 100 000 will fire on him (and are likely to kill him....). Things don't happen like that in real modern war... sending too much troops in a small area will only raise casualties from both friendly fire and enemy fire. There should be a limit to the number of troops being able to fight efficiently in a given spot (as it is the case in TF).

Anyway, taking Iwo Jima in one day of battle (as shown in one the AAR listed here) is completly unrealistic

My whole experience of playing IJN in 1943 in UV shows that, once you have no more CV superiority, the only thing you can do is to defend two bases whith at least 3 divisions. It is worthless to try to hold the remainder of the map and useless to build forts in other bases. The only result of the latter is to lose to malaria valuable ENG troops and any Allied assault will storm the place (with level 9 fort, that tooks months to build) in some days. Once the Allied player has five divisions doing island-hopping in the Solomons, your only chance to stop him taking two bases a week is to sink his fleet.



JohnK -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 6:05:33 PM)

Yeah, my UV experience is with evenly matched forces ground combat CAN last a while, but once a "tipping point" is reached, the weaker force begins to weaken exponentially and is quickly annihilated.



Erik Rutins -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 6:18:16 PM)

Well, I can't say my experience has been the same, but certainly we'll keep an eye on this. In my current retail release grand campaign, I've been holding at Rangoon, Johore Baru and Bataan for around three months. Ongoing attrition, deliberate and shock attacks, outnumbered in each place at least 2:1... terrain is definitely taken into account, as are HQs, supplies, disruption, fatigue, etc. Joel, Mike or one of the testers could probably add more to this, but from my own experience those long historical stands are definitely possible.

Regards,

- Erik



Damien Thorn -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 6:25:01 PM)

Erik,

Any consideraton to the idea above to let the players decide what the threshold ratio should be before the defender starts collapasing? Currently it is 2-1. Having the option to set it to what we want would be really great.



Grotius -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 6:27:17 PM)

It's a valid concern, but I'm not sure I'm seeing this either. The IJA has been besieging Naga (in the Phillipines) for two or three weeks, and I'm still holding out. Some of my Malayan bases fought for over a week. It's January, and the siege of Singapore has begun, but I'm hoping to hold it for at least a couple weeks.

In some cases, the AI and I have been in long wars of attrition simply because the AI didn't bring enough troops. Sooner or later the AI reinforces its invasion force, and I eventually lose. Examples include Menado, which took a week or so, and Jolo Island.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 6:41:48 PM)

Would be nice if you had some details. What you are talking about is completely impossible.



AmiralLaurent -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 6:44:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Well, I can't say my experience has been the same, but certainly we'll keep an eye on this. In my current retail release grand campaign, I've been holding at Rangoon, Johore Baru and Bataan for around three months. Ongoing attrition, deliberate and shock attacks, outnumbered in each place at least 2:1... terrain is definitely taken into account, as are HQs, supplies, disruption, fatigue, etc. Joel, Mike or one of the testers could probably add more to this, but from my own experience those long historical stands are definitely possible.

Regards,

- Erik


I don't say it is not possible, and even in UV games saw Lunga, Irau or Port Moresby battles last for months, but only if both sides are more or less evenly matched.

Bataan was a better defensive position than Clark Field as it was a peninsula and could be held by a limited number of troops and attacked only by a limited number of troops. In WITP it seems to me that both those parameters don't exist.

If players use realistic tactics (no more than 3 divisions in a given hex, for example), results are OK. But you can have a death star effect with a super transport TF unloading 6-10 divisions crushing every base in its path, then loading troops again for another attack. There is nothing to do to stop it (on the ground). At least in UV.

I don't think it is possible for the Japanese player to really use such a plan but it will definetly be possible for the Allied player starting from 1943.

Best way to modelize it for me would be to have a number for each hex telling how much units (divisions) can hold/attack it. Say one for a mountain pass (Kokoda Trail), two for a jungle area (Bataan) and 4 for a plain hex (like Clark Field). Ground combat would be resolved by units limited to this size, extra-units may only be used for bombardments.

Bonus: say 4 Allied divisions are attacking two Japanese divisions on the Kokoda Trail. All 4 Allied units have attack orders. Only the best (in assault value) will actually launch an attack, the two other will actually only bombard (but remain with attack orders). On the Japanese side, same things, the best division will hold the line and the other be on reserve in the rear and only use its guns. Then the next day, frontline divisions may be the same or not (simulating fresh troops replacing depleted ones on the line). So the side with the most troops still has an advantage as it will have fresh troops for a longer time, but the war in such a spot will be the bloody long fight it should be.

Same situation at Clark Field, with 4 attacking Allied divisions against 2 Japanese ones. Here the Japanese have not enough troops to hold efficiently the place, that means in the real world that will either only man a thin line or defend only a part of the line, so the probability of a success of an Allied attack are greatly increased.



Nikademus -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 6:53:10 PM)

i'm not seeing a problem so far. then again all of my best attacks had Jim's prerequistite (massive attacker edge in numbers) and were preceeded by week(s) long bombardments and massive air attacks.

for those that wer'nt...i got spanked.. (two division attack on Manila completely repulsed with heavy losses and no fort reduc......another failed attack on Mandalay by 1.75 divisions)

i keep hearing about historical PI this and that....i've yet to see *ONE* player try to take the islands with the historical forces used. why? they would not succeed without first starving the enemy since the defenders would outnumber the attackers. Myself..i had 100000+ troops!



Mr.Frag -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 7:05:43 PM)

Please don't talk about UV when talking about WitP. They have NOTHING to do with each other.

Anyone attempting UV type land warfare in WitP will suffer massive losses.

You just confuse people with completely inaccurate statements when discussing UV.



myros -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 7:13:43 PM)

Not seeing the '2 days" results here either. Singapore took about 2 months to fall, its may 42 now and Manilla is still holding out though outnumbered around 60k vs 40k. The only times Ive seen the type of auto-win was in the open when a defender was fleeing and had zero supplies which is to be expected anyway.

Ive only played against the AI though, so it may be that the player can stack other factors to give unrealistic events *shrug*

Myros



mavraam -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 7:22:42 PM)

Saipan has been holding out against my Marines for 2 weeks. Of course, I probably don't know what I'm doing!

Troop strength is about equal (both at about 20k) but I have 4 armored battalions and Jap has no vehicles and only a few guns. Fort at 3. I have total air superiority and am bombing the living he11 out of him.

I also have two massive bombardment TF's that are hammering away every night.

Most of my battles are about 150 cas for me and 400-500 for him. It looks like a long horrific bloodbath just like WWII.

Shock attacks with armor have had mixed results.

So I guess I'm not seeing the quick battles either. At least not here.



Nikademus -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 7:23:42 PM)

At a guess i'd say people are taking my "2day major assault" battles and isolating them from rest of the battle. (when they're looking at the AAR i did at least)

To me, all the land and air bombardment attacks represent part of the overall assault/campaign. People need to keep in mind that the game contains no provision for small, probling or otherwise minor type attacks. Closest you get is "bombardment attack" My campaigns against Singapore, Manila, and Clarke took weeks to complete and all had major numerical advantages for the attacker. Lastly i used the weight of my airforce to assist the ground forces. Not sure if i'll be able to do this in future games since alot of those planes are also needed to interdict the lanes into and out of the SRA.

But as mentioned....people seem to be focusing only on the actual major assaults, and ignroing the weeks of preperation that led up to it. Had i not done that....my casualties would have increased probably 10 fold.

Thats the major difference between WitP and UV. In UV, you could dispense with the preperation and just go immediately to the attack. Usually the defender would suffer more losses than the attacker and he could just keep assaulting and assaulting and assaulting. There was also almost no difference (casualty wise) between shock and delib attacks. Neither case is valid anymore in WitP



Agua -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 7:34:29 PM)

WitP is primarily a naval forces game. Very little focus is given to ground combat. It's the same with UV. Which is fine, it's still a great game, but the modeling of ground combat is not its strong point.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 7:57:55 PM)

quote:

WitP is primarily a naval forces game. Very little focus is given to ground combat. It's the same with UV. Which is fine, it's still a great game, but the modeling of ground combat is not its strong point.


Thats pretty much completely wrong [:D]

Ground combat is probably more then a 3rd of the game now. The majority of your Victory Points will come from how you do at ground combat.

Ships just get you where you need to be to fight, they are no longer the primary score like in UV days.



captskillet -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 8:31:33 PM)

I haven't noticed this too much either. Sinapore held out until middle of Jan 42 and it is now early Feb and Clark Field, Manila and Battan still in American hands.



pad152 -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 8:35:25 PM)

I use to think land combat was too simplistic, but now I think it's reporting of land combat that's too simplistic. I would like to see more favor(detail) to Land Combat Reports.

Example
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat

Japanese Deliberate attack

Attacking force 22235 troops, 243 guns, 17 vehicles
33rd Division

Defending force 11934 troops, 75 guns, 1 vehicles
2nd Burma Rifle Brigade

Japanese assault odds: 0 to 1 (fort level 0)


Japanese ground losses:
33rd Division
----------------------
152 casualties reported
152 - IJA Inf
7 Guns lost
3 - 3in Mortor
4 - 70mm Inf Gun
Vehicles lost
1 - Type92 Tankette

Allied ground losses:
2nd Burma Rifle Brigade
----------------------
417 casualties reported
207 - CW Rife Inf
190 - CW Eng
30 - Support Units
6 Guns lost
3 - 3in Mortor
3 - 57mm AT Gun



UncleBuck -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 8:42:51 PM)

That would be a nice report. I woudl then know what is working, what is being depleted, and get a better feel of how the combat is going.



AmiralLaurent -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 9:39:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

WitP is primarily a naval forces game. Very little focus is given to ground combat. It's the same with UV. Which is fine, it's still a great game, but the modeling of ground combat is not its strong point.


Thats pretty much completely wrong [:D]

Ground combat is probably more then a 3rd of the game now. The majority of your Victory Points will come from how you do at ground combat.

Ships just get you where you need to be to fight, they are no longer the primary score like in UV days.


That is exactly why because I'm disappointed to see how quick Japanese garnisons are crushed in 44-45 in the AAR available on this forum.

And you're right to point I speak from my UV experience. My WITP loading is now 93%, so I should be more clever in my some days (I just hope to be able to stop playing for work and maybe some sleep). But I am afraid that 1943-and-later PBEM will simply be impossible as the Japanese bases will be unable to hold against any attack for more than two days.

Seeing 60 000 Japanese take 2 months to crush 40 000 men holding Manilla is OK for me, but seeing 100 000 Marines land on Tarawa in 3 days isn't.

My main concern is the hability of Allied attacks to reduce forts level from 9 (the "best in the world" type) to 0 in some days. All my WWII knowledge shows that fortified areas were really hard nuts to crack.



Nikademus -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 9:44:25 PM)

keep in mind here that even after you take the base...you'll also have to spend time "mopping up" since Japanese troops dont surrender en-masse. It took me over 3 weeks to completely clear Saipan in one playtest 'after' i'd taken the base (and that was with alot of support attacks)



Mr.Frag -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 10:03:44 PM)

Look at all the questions people are asking about how to take Saipan in the Marianas. That should give you a clue of what the Allies have in store for them. It is NOT pretty. Troops NEVER surrender. You have to murder them wholesale before you can leave the hex. It takes FOREVER to make progress.



foliveti -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 10:26:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

keep in mind here that even after you take the base...you'll also have to spend time "mopping up" since Japanese troops dont surrender en-masse. It took me over 3 weeks to completely clear Saipan in one playtest 'after' i'd taken the base (and that was with alot of support attacks)

I think a lot of people may be missing this point. Historically I think the alles often were able to take the main objective or base relatively quickly. However, digging out the defenders from the rest of the island could take weeks.



ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 10:39:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

quote:

WitP is primarily a naval forces game. Very little focus is given to ground combat. It's the same with UV. Which is fine, it's still a great game, but the modeling of ground combat is not its strong point.


Thats pretty much completely wrong [:D]

Ground combat is probably more then a 3rd of the game now. The majority of your Victory Points will come from how you do at ground combat.

Ships just get you where you need to be to fight, they are no longer the primary score like in UV days.


That is exactly why because I'm disappointed to see how quick Japanese garnisons are crushed in 44-45 in the AAR available on this forum.

And you're right to point I speak from my UV experience. My WITP loading is now 93%, so I should be more clever in my some days (I just hope to be able to stop playing for work and maybe some sleep). But I am afraid that 1943-and-later PBEM will simply be impossible as the Japanese bases will be unable to hold against any attack for more than two days.

Seeing 60 000 Japanese take 2 months to crush 40 000 men holding Manilla is OK for me, but seeing 100 000 Marines land on Tarawa in 3 days isn't.

My main concern is the hability of Allied attacks to reduce forts level from 9 (the "best in the world" type) to 0 in some days. All my WWII knowledge shows that fortified areas were really hard nuts to crack.


I really haven't gotten far enough for the big US assaults to happen yet. But some thoughts have struck me reading this thread.

1) It would be totally unrealistic for there to EVER be 100,000 troops on an atoll like Tarawa. It's really unrealistic for that many to be on a place like Saipan as well. Half the casualties in such a case would be from friendly fire! In reality, it would be hard to jam 100,000 combat troops in any single hex, even on the Mongolian steppes. That's roughly two filled out Corps of troops in a 60 mile hex! You didn't even normally see that kind of troop concentration in Army Group Central on the German Eastern Front, much less in terrain like China, Burma, New Guinea or the Pacific Islands. Is there a any sort of limitation in the game to account for this?

2) While the ground combat model is perfect for most of the map, even thick jungle like Burma, there seems to be no real concept of a "front" in the large, relatively open land areas in China, or India. The troops are deployed, concentrated, largely along roads/rails instead of being spread out along a "front" ala the eastern front in Europe.



Mr.Frag -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 10:48:30 PM)

Keep in mind, a full division is about 8,000 troops. To that are about 25,000 rear area folks supporting in.

In reality, only the 8,000 boys would be coming ashore to fight. The support guys would be doing their usual jobs.



Black Cat -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 10:54:45 PM)

I have had US troop with a size 2 Fort [X(] in the PI holding the Clark Field hex in the PI for 2 weeks now ( 14 day turns ), they are outnumbered 2:1 and have had at least 4, perhaps 5 attacks fail against them. The reasons are the AI got several bad die rolls, I have commited my fighters to intercept the AI Bombers, giving them several major losses which lower their morale= lower effectiveness, but it will go soon due lack of supply.

I do think and with all due respect Jim, it`s unlikely the sitution you set up as example ,i.e. " equal numbers" and "no forts" will happen much. Also IMHO the keys to a extended defense, as in Pac War, is enough supply and a good quality leader. Factors that perhaps , in the AAR`s you make mention of, were ignored by the losing player ?. I also seem to remember that Kid, in one of his posts said he held the PI through June...... I`m only at 1/15/42 and always pull the 2 high quality Aussie Brigades out of Singapore/Mayla and never ship in supplies., so I can`t comment on how long it can hold if you really commited to it and are willing to lose ships getting in supply, but with those 2 Brigades there, plenty of supply to rebuild forts and fighter cover I could see it lasting through end of March depending on the die rolls.

The answer to your question may be that it should take a very long time for the winners LCU`s to recover if they have taken heavy losses.



ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 10:57:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Keep in mind, a full division is about 8,000 troops. To that are about 25,000 rear area folks supporting in.

In reality, only the 8,000 boys would be coming ashore to fight. The support guys would be doing their usual jobs.


I think historically Saipan was invaded with 5 divisions. Assuming roughly 8000 combat troops per division, puts the number on Saipan at roughly 40,000. That's probably the upward limit of what could be jammed on an island the size of Saipan without beginning to incur some serious operational difficulties. That number would be MUCH smaller on atolls like Tarawa, Kawajelin, etc....

100,000 Combat troops equates to 12-14 Infantry divisions or 2-3 full Corps....

It seems logical that if there are anti-deathstar rules on carrier TF's there should be some anti-deathstar rules on massive assault forces in one hex, too.



Nikademus -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 10:58:29 PM)

troop limits for small landmasses was discussed however it was dropped due to other priorities, not to mention it was hard to come to any kind of consensus as to "what" limit should be enforced....more so given that it is simply impossible and unfeasible to try to represent land masses (i.e. Atolls) with different or unique requirements. The game is too large for such nicities.

So you have bases like Midway which are obviously very small but also have larger atolls and whole islands as well. The Japanese did a good job stuffing a division+ on Tarawa and Saipan, and Okinawa packed 100,000 troops within a smaller sector of the landmass (and under it)

Where does one draw the line? It also would have required a morass of testing, especially with the new LCU rules in place. Given how potentially bloody atoll combat can be, the attacker is going to want at least a 5:1 edge in troopage and firepower.

Any "restrictions" or stacking limits on an island or atoll would have required a seperate stacking rule for the attacker, otherwise you'd have little chance to take them.

Rather than look at the troop levels that are being employed, i think a simpler solution to potential game-exploits vis-a-vis amphibious operations would be to re-examine the 'objective' tab functionality.



ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 11:16:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

troop limits for small landmasses was discussed however it was dropped due to other priorities, not to mention it was hard to come to any kind of consensus as to "what" limit should be enforced....more so given that it is simply impossible and unfeasible to try to represent land masses (i.e. Atolls) with different or unique requirements. The game is too large for such nicities.

So you have bases like Midway which are obviously very small but also have larger atolls and whole islands as well. The Japanese did a good job stuffing a division+ on Tarawa and Saipan, and Okinawa packed 100,000 troops within a smaller sector of the landmass (and under it)

Where does one draw the line? It also would have required a morass of testing, especially with the new LCU rules in place. Given how potentially bloody atoll combat can be, the attacker is going to want at least a 5:1 edge in troopage and firepower.

Any "restrictions" or stacking limits on an island or atoll would have required a seperate stacking rule for the attacker, otherwise you'd have little chance to take them.

Rather than look at the troop levels that are being employed, i think a simpler solution to potential game-exploits vis-a-vis amphibious operations would be to re-examine the 'objective' tab functionality.


Yea, that sounds a reasonable compromise. I've come to realize as a Solitaire player that you have to keep yourself somewhat inside a "reality box" to keep the game playable. I could pull Ausi Divisions out of DEI, Malaysia, and the home continent, empty out India and move all SE Asia attached Chinese units, and move them ALL to Mandalay, move those early air support units you get at Karachi in mid Jan and move them there as well, and then add every available combat air unit in the game I had PP for, and send the AI into one of those death spirals, knowing full well it's not going to attempt to flank me at all. Same for Rabaul. But what's the point? Until when or if ever, we get an AI enhancement to allow it flip to a plan B, all that does is needlessly break the game. Same thing on the Japan side. Mogami has already stated that there are some extreme things you do against the Allied AI that will completely break the AI, so why would one want to do that? The AI is what it is and it will either be enhanced or not. If it's not enhanced, the game is still very playable and enjoyable, you just have to play within reason...



Banquet -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 11:24:17 PM)

Didn't I read somewhere that the A.I looks for your weak spots? If you emptied half the map defending where they were next going to attack, wouldn't it then find all your newly created weak spots? (at last on hard difficulty - where it gets to peak at your bases) Ot am I being overly optimistic? Otherwise what does 'looks for weak spots' mean?



ZOOMIE1980 -> RE: Ground combats too quick (7/14/2004 11:29:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Banquet

Didn't I read somewhere that the A.I looks for your weak spots? If you emptied half the map defending where they were next going to attack, wouldn't it then find all your newly created weak spots? (at last on hard difficulty - where it gets to peak at your bases) Ot am I being overly optimistic? Otherwise what does 'looks for weak spots' mean?


Not on a strategic scale, no. It "peeks" a bit to help find your CV TF's and get more prewarning of your invasion forces from the way I understand it. But I don't think it will attack any Indian base, like Madras, if it empty, unless that's part of on of the operational subroutine it is executing. In otherwords, I don't think, as part of its Burma offensive subroutine, it's smart enough to try and flank and all-out Mandalay defense by massively flanking you in the Dacca/Calcutta area. It would be DAMNED COOL if it did, though!

Oh and as for the weak spots, I think that mean it will look for some weak spots within the scope of operations it is currently pursuing. It's not just going to attack Bombay all of sudden because it's empty, or even take Baker Island.....at least I don't think it will.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.8417969