RE: Reports (Full Version)

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



Message

erstad -> RE: Reports (6/8/2007 6:31:25 AM)

I'm sure this is earlier, but even if so it's worth reinforcing. Make the locations in the reports (especially the operations report, but also sigint and combat) hot links that can be clicked to center the map on the hex.

And provide some kind of filter system for the ops report, so one doesn't have to wade through 500 sub sightings to make sure you don't miss something important.



Javakamp -> RE: Reports (6/8/2007 3:26:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad

And provide some kind of filter system for the ops report, so one doesn't have to wade through 500 sub sightings to make sure you don't miss something important.


I totally agree.




wdolson -> RE: Wish List (6/9/2007 12:39:40 AM)

On a related item, it would be nice if all the information that is displayed in the screen during processing of a turn was also available after the turn was over.  Most of it ends up in the Ops Report, but some things don't.  Ship sinkings when Fog of War is off is one of them.





jwilkerson -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/9/2007 8:27:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

I'd like to see the shock attack option removed from the ground combat options.

Except for atoll invasions, para drops and river crossings.
These are the only combats for shock attacks, and they should be mandatory.
Bonzai attacks should be mandatory also, though I've never seen one.[;)]

The scale of the regular land combat shouldn't support this option.


Hum, no voluntary shock attacks, interesting .. that will take some thought ...

Mandatory "Bonzai" attacks!! [:D]

Maybe he means Bonsai !!

Or maybe he means Banzai !!!!

Good thing he's never seen one though [:D] regardless !!!

But no voluntary shock attacks. That would certainly change things in China ... hum ...




Halsey -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/9/2007 1:13:45 PM)

Correct.
Only mandatory triggered shock attacks.

Shock attack is a tactical option, not a strategic one.
Shock attack simulates a situation where a force is trying to form and retain a bridgehead, or as a last chance desperation attack.

This would really slow the pace of ground operations down.
Noticeably in Asia.[;)]

A possible change to the mechanics to change the way land combat is conducted?[8D]






jwilkerson -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/9/2007 6:28:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Correct.
Only mandatory triggered shock attacks.

Shock attack is a tactical option, not a strategic one.
Shock attack simulates a situation where a force is trying to form and retain a bridgehead, or as a last chance desperation attack.

This would really slow the pace of ground operations down.
Noticeably in Asia.[;)]

A possible change to the mechanics to change the way land combat is conducted?[8D]







I'm not sure I can think through all the ramifications of this in my little ole head.

I can certainly see that it would reduce offensive potential for both sides in China - and that has been something we've been after since day one. But it would do the same everywhere else too. So one concern is - would this be too much of a "boon" to the defender regardless?

So, trying to chip away at this a little bit, what if we allowed voluntary Shock Attack in Bases where the attacker has all units above 50 prep points for that base. This would be saying this is a major "Planned" attack.

But out in the field, some people are seeing that "field forts" (i.e. non-base forts) are more problematic to defeat - and without the shock attack to increase your firepower, I could see the possibility of a WWI like feel to the game where defensive lines are unassailable. But, I figure you've thought about this more than I have, so tell me more!!
[:D]



moses -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/9/2007 7:49:33 PM)

The shock attack is the primary DEFENSIVE weapon for China. Without it there is no chance for defending China whatsoever.

The shock attack is the primary defensive technique for defending other locations. For example Clark Field in the PI. You defend the PI by massing at Clark and whenever Japan enters with an insufficient force you drive him out. Without the shock attack Japan can step into the hex with half the force he currently needs and the allies are defensless.




Halsey -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/9/2007 10:07:22 PM)

So you are saying that the shock attack is a defensive option?
Cite me some historical instances for this will ya, please?
I'd be extremely interested to learn more about them.

Bases are defended from adjacent hexes.
It is easier and faster to entrench outside a base hex, anyway.

Combat should be a slugfest on this scale.
Time consuming and costly in terms of men, material and supplies.

I could see a modification for this combat option though.
In addition to the already stated mandatory shock attacks.

Include units in bases to have the shock option.
To overcome the fortification levels, and kick out oposing troops.

Plus put a cap on the entrenchment levels for units outside of base hexes.
Say three levels max.

Plus do away with the pursue option completely.
It's complete nonsense to even include this option with the scale of land combat given in this game.



moses -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/9/2007 11:52:01 PM)

We both know that WITP ground combat is not terribly historical.

In the game the shock attack is of great defensive importance. At Clark Field for example, once Japan digs into that hex its over for the allies. The shock attack is the only defensive hope.

If you realy want historical examples I would argue that its fairly standard doctrine to counterattack bridgheads in the period before they become well established.

But again its WITP and you're arguing for a major major change.



siRkid -> One old one new (6/11/2007 10:40:32 PM)

Old - Please put in a no fly option where an enemy base can be tagged as a no fly zone. Players setting up a large cap on a base near to your airfields can effectively make you stop flying Naval Attack missions in that whole area by placing one TF in that port.

New - When selecting a partial unit (Land or Air), can you show the location of the parent unit to make it easer to bring the two together?




dtravel -> RE: One old one new (6/13/2007 11:36:49 AM)

The pilot replacement rate for US Navy is too low.  I know most games haven't reached 1945 yet but in my game against the AI I'm up to April, almost May, 1945 and I am still trying to fill out the new F4U squadrons on my US carriers after the 1945 airgroup change.  Those new VBF squadrons sucked the pool dry and have been absorbing every new pilot for four months and counting.



Halsey -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/14/2007 12:42:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: moses
But again its WITP and you're arguing for a major major change.


Yep, and with the change will come different gameplay.

No more optional schlock attacks by theatre army sized stacks.
Offensive or defensive.
It'll bring maneuver into the picture.
Not just army stack against army stack.

It'll mean that a player has to think ahead instead of just reacting.[;)]



jwilkerson -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/14/2007 12:49:30 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey


quote:

ORIGINAL: moses
But again its WITP and you're arguing for a major major change.


Yep, and with the change will come different gameplay.

No more optional schlock attacks by theatre army sized stacks.
Offensive or defensive.
It'll bring maneuver into the picture.
Not just army stack against army stack.

It'll mean that a player has to think ahead instead of just reacting.[;)]




I've asked around a bit, and to my surprise, there seem to be two, relatively distinct, schools of thought/play on this point. Some folks (and their opponents) seem to basically never shock attack, other folks, and their opponents, seem to mostly shock attack. Since I learned all I know about land combat (in WITP) from the "God of Land Warfare in China" Moses, I guess I'm in the "mostly shock attack" school. But I'm curious to know how things go in a China game between two experienced players following the "basically never shock attack" school. One response just said "Well we play CHS and it is different" .. which wasn't much help. I would think the (game) laws of "shock attack physics" would be the same regardless of which MOD one was playing. So can you tell us some more about this "different gameplay"??




Halsey -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/14/2007 2:40:39 AM)

Stock is worse, because of the interstate road system that the map has in Asia.[;)]

Without the shock tactic.

Retrograde defensive retreats are now possible.
Modest size combat LCU's can cover retreats, due to movement into contested hexes being reduced to half speed.
This allows primary armies to redeploy to strategic positions, and dig in.
While your rearguard forces fight delaying actions.
(Not possible to do at all with the shock pursue option available).

Once these strategic locations are contested, the attacker can then.
1. Slug it out expending material and supplies, and reinforcements.
2. Attempt flanking operations to threaten defensive resupply and reinforcements.

The defender.
1. Same as above.
2. Same as above.

Both sides.
1. Flanking operations to dilute the main force, plus threaten supply and reinforcements.

In toto.
This forces both players to dilute major armies to protect and reinforce their flanks.
It also forces players to defend in depth, should a breakthrough happen.
Again, more dilution of combat units.

I rest my case...[:D][;)]
ie, only mandatory shock attacks should be kept in the game.
Limiting out of base entrenchment levels is also another consideration.



jwilkerson -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/14/2007 2:48:15 AM)

So you think (with the no shock attack option) that China can hold against a Japanese player attacking hard from the get-go?

I'll give you an assumption of no major reinforcements (air or land) for either side as a basis.



Halsey -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/14/2007 7:40:41 PM)

Sure.

If the Chinese player defends in depth, instead of enmass.
With long range objectives defined by the player with prepping and entrenching.
Piece of cake.[;)]

This makes players think ahead.
What a novel concept.[:D]

It'll allow tactical flexibility in continental land operations.
A reduction in massive stacks for both sides.
Players can now fight retrograde actions in conjunction with flanking operations as a viable tactical consideration in seizing or defending strategic objectives.

It'll create a whole new game as far as continental combat is concerned.[;)]
It'll slow it down and change the way it's played out.

I imagine those players that refrain from using the shock/pursue options in their games can attest to this.
It does make the continental combat a lot more interesting.
More thinking involved.



jwilkerson -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/14/2007 7:59:24 PM)

Sounds like the "promised land" !! [:D]

Gee, I wonder if you'd care to "show us how its done"!?

I have a "China Only" scenario that Moses and I have used in the past for testing ... eh ... ???

Maybe we can talk Moses in to playing Japan. Then you can show us the "spread em out and hold em" defense!!!



Halsey -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/14/2007 9:46:53 PM)

I don't play stock.[;)]

I graduated to a more realistic view of the world a long time ago, ie: Andrew Browns map.[:D]

Actually, players that restrict themselves to deliberate attack routines will also verify my tactical option variations.
Taking out the voluntary shock routine actually forces players into using the tactical doctrines that I've desribed in the previous post.
Players can learn to adapt if forced to.



moses -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/14/2007 10:01:04 PM)

I'll respond in a couple parts to prevent this going too long. Maybe at this point this discussion might be more appropriate in another thread.

Part I:

Japan in China doesn't need Shock attacks all that much. They have the superior army. They have overwhelming air power.

My rule of thumb is that 2 Chinese Corps can safely shock attack 1 Japanese division and drive it out of clear terrain. So lets take the example of Changsa which is the key to China's defence:

I can put around 24 Chinese Corps there fairly quickly. So Japan needs to bring at least 12 Division equivalents there are be driven out in what would be a true disaster. Really he will want to bring a lot more. I going to shock attack you when you get there!!!Do you feel safe with even 14 Divisions?? Maybe I get a good dice roll and your 14 divisions get crushed----heavy losses due to retreat--heavy morale hit.

So basically to occupy Changsa Japan has to make this the single priority and send everything possible there. No Yenen or Homan offensives. Just a single massive thrust.

Later in the game it is worse for Japan as the chinese division gain morale and experience, 1 division might drive out a Japanese division.

But without shock attacks its much easier for Japan. As Japan I would be completly safe moving in with 10 divisions. Then, after waiting a couple turns to dig in, I bombard with my artillery units each turn. My air units attack each turn as well. Once you're disrupted a bit I'll even pull a couple of my divisions out for service elsewhere. I've already won

With only 8 divisions I've cut off Changsa's resourse production, and have 24 Chinese Corps operating at combat supply and I still have plenty of force for offensives elsewhere.

What are you going to do. (If you say spread out I'll address in part II)



moses -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/14/2007 10:31:10 PM)

Part II: Spreading out. (i.e. how not to defend as China)

Sounds good, you have a front line and whereever Japan goes you match him so that he doesn't have the force to drive you out. (except for the now forbidden shock attack.) A couple problems with this:

1.) Japan wins when forces are equal. Without shock attack you probably need 9 or more Chinese Corps to defeat a Japanese 3 division stack. Less then that and Japan wins!!!

----------------A. His artillery is superior. You bombard and he bombards and you know who losses the most.

-----------------B. China does not have the supply to engage in multiple inconclusive battles out in the countryside. I would like nothing better as Japan then to have 30 or 40 Chinese Corps locked in endless bombardment battles. All of them drawing double supplies across overlan supply routes. You'll run out very rapidly.

-----------------C. Fighting daily in the countryside will not allow the chinese forces to maintain and raise their morale as is needed to survive later in the war. In my Jwilkerson game over half of my Corps have morale above 65. A significant chunk are now in the 80's. You achieve that by avoiding pointless inconclusive battles.

2.) Japan will still make you retreat: Japan is generally more capable of massing his forces and because he has air supremacy he has more intell. He can see what your doing and for the most part China can't see squat. So you're guys spread out in the countryside will still find themselves caught at a disadvantage and retreated. Japan will rarely allow you to mass enough to retreat him with a deliberate attack. And if you get close 200 Sallies will come to visit.


This is not the way to fight.





moses -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/14/2007 10:56:04 PM)

Part III: Strongpoint Changsa.

I'll use Changsa as an example because it is the most important position. But the same principle apply elsewhere.

OK, I've rush 24 Chinese Corps to Changsa where I sit digging in. If Japan wants to take this city he has two options.

1) Direct assault: Because of the threat of a Chinese Shock attack he needs to bring everything he has. (This, by the way, is what I would do if I were playing against this strategy.) Japan can bring 12 or 13 divisions, 5 or 6 Bde's, a couple Mongol cav, ENG regiments, and some arty. You move it all in at once. Meanwhile you have every bomber in China hitting Chansa from day 1 of the war. You spend 3 or 4 turns just letting your troops dig in. No BOMBARDING. After you're dug in you let your arty units bombard for a while.

This will work and Japan has a good chance of taking Changsa eventually. If China is not careful they can lose the war. The downside for Japan is that this will be the only offensive in China. China will either counterattack in other area's to relieve the pressure or move everything to Changsa to try to hold it long term. It will be a tough war.

2.) Surround China: But lets say Japan wants to take Changsa on the cheep. Maybe use only 10 divisions and launch another offensive to take Yenen for instance. It sounds like a good idea to surround the city but actually it's very difficult.

I sit in Changsa with 24 Corps as you try and surround me. I see it happening because movement in the countryside is slow. And I have two simple strategies.

---------------A. Counterattack: You have 4 divisions in the countryside doing a flanking movment around Changsa. You open you're turn to see 12 Chinese Corps have just plopped into you're hex. Not much you can do as movement rates are too slow to retreat or bring reinforcements to stop next turns shock attack. BANG 4 Japanese divisions that won't be any good for weeks or months.

----------------B. Blocking force: I know the hexes you have to control so as I see you trying to cut my route I move a force into the hex your moving to. Now I have an even better chance to retreat you because you're guys are tired from running about the countryside.



moses -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/14/2007 11:19:17 PM)

Part IV: Some final thoughts.

The ability to shock attack has the primary effect of making it more difficult to close with the defender. In order to move into a hex you have to be sure to bring enough force to survive the counterattack. This restricts the attackers options greatly and gives the weaker side some chance of establishing a stable position.

I know it seems counter-intuitive and who knows what the intent of the designers may have been. But many things are strange. Explain, for example, the results of bombardment missions??? I fire 2000 guns against your 100 guns and I kill a ton. But if you have 2000 guns as well then nobody gets hurt. Go figure. I guess the artillery shells all collide with each other and never reach the ground. Explain why troops dig in rapidy in the countryside but require supply, engineers, and weeks of time to dig in in bases??? Kinda strange. Why when I bombard does my defence strength get halved???? etc. etc.

But thats the way it is. In general the shock attack helps the weaker side.

Anyway I'm happy to take Japan in the China scenario if you want to test it. I'm headed on a cruise soon and will be gone from 23 June to 6 July. But apart from that I'm off (schools out for summer!!!!) and can crank out 10-15 of these short turns a day against a dedicated opponent.



wdolson -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/17/2007 4:46:38 AM)

Convert all the slot specific attributes in the database to a flag field in the database.  ie to give a unit or type of euipment a specific attribute, you would set a flag in the database giving it that attribute.  No slots would have any special properties over any others in that section of the database.  To give a unit an attribute, set the flag.

Bill



Halsey -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/20/2007 10:49:55 PM)

I agree with the entrenchment of outside bases being too rapid.
I'd like to see it cap out at 3.

It'll make the progressive building of entrenchments at bases more valuable.

Actually, as far as shock combat is concerned.
I'd be happy if just the pursue option was taken out.

WITP isn't the Eastern Front.[:D]



moses -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/20/2007 11:16:46 PM)

I think the pursue option could probably go. Jwilkerson had a couple armored unit in Java and after his large infantry stack retreated me once, his 2 armored units alone drove my entire army across the island at a rate of 60 miles day!!![&:] I think I went 300 miles in 5 days. My guys never knew they could run so fast.

It also kind of conflicts with the change that was made a long time back to slow movement into enemy controlled hexes.

Yea!! so we agree on something!!!!!![&o]



jwilkerson -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/21/2007 12:13:38 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: moses

I think the pursue option could probably go. Jwilkerson had a couple armored unit in Java and after his large infantry stack retreated me once, his 2 armored units alone drove my entire army across the island at a rate of 60 miles day!!![&:] I think I went 300 miles in 5 days. My guys never knew they could run so fast.

It also kind of conflicts with the change that was made a long time back to slow movement into enemy controlled hexes.

Yea!! so we agree on something!!!!!![&o]


I think it was 3 armor units in Java, not 2, but point made and taken, that was quite a "blitz", though I did plan it that way, that's why I brought 'em! [:D] but I agree even V. Manstein on his best week, was hard pressed to maintain that pace, and he had better terrain than I had. Armored pursiut in the game can lead to strange results.

However, I will put in a plug for "non-armored" pursuit.

Consider like if either side is trying to drive between Mytchina and Ledo ... either direction either side attacking, doesn't matter.

If one side retreats the other, then the "defender" (the guy who got retreated) ... got a 60 mile move and yes he is beat up. But now - if no pursue option (forget armor - for this discussion we're only talking infantrt) - then the "attacker" now has to walk the 60 mile trail. While he is doing this, he is getting beat up (just by walking) and the defender is resting. I don't think you can walk even one trail hex, especially after just fighting and be any better off than 30/60 (dis/fat) .. and it could take you 12+ days to get there, while the defender is resting. So by the time you get there, he can maybe shock attack you and kick YOU back. Is this plausible? Yeah, probably in some cases. But in general I would expect the retreating force to be unable to do a lot of regrouping while they are withdrawing in the face of an advancing enemy and somehow this is what we are trying to represent. I'm not sure I have the perfect solution. But just wanted to point out that in this case, the pursue option helps, by at least slightly reducing the time the defender has to "rest" and reducing slighting the amount of additional damage, the attacker will take catching back up to the defender.




dtravel -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/21/2007 1:08:17 AM)

How the *bleep* are you getting troops to move a hex along trails in only 12 days!?!? 



jwilkerson -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/21/2007 1:31:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

How the *bleep* are you getting troops to move a hex along trails in only 12 days!?!? 


Well that's the "theory" sir!! ... 5 mphex/pday ... of course if any of the dials are reading other than perfect, then the + kicks in.




Halsey -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/21/2007 2:05:34 AM)

I've actually had the misfortune of witnessing the pursuit of a BF with all it's squads disabled being chased across India by a Japanese Inf Corps.[:D]

Had a similar instance in Northern Australia with Japanese armor.

All the squads disabled, and every other turn a shock with pursue.

At that time I was wishing for a voluntary surrender option.[;)][:D]



dtravel -> RE: WitP Wish List (6/21/2007 3:01:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson


quote:

ORIGINAL: dtravel

How the *bleep* are you getting troops to move a hex along trails in only 12 days!?!? 


Well that's the "theory" sir!! ... 5 mphex/pday ... of course if any of the dials are reading other than perfect, then the + kicks in.

Ya, well, that "theory" is worth about half of what the paper its written on is. *waits a beat for everyone to get that* I've never seen a ground unit get more than 2 miles a day along a trail. And that very specifically includes units with morale of 90+ and disruption/fatigue of 0/5.

(For that matter, the road rates listed in the manual are at least twice what was actually programmed and those non-rail/road/trail rates are complete fantasy.)



Page: <<   < prev  24 25 [26] 27 28   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2