Army Disaster on Java is this a bug

Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (Full Version)

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

Message

Andy Mac -> Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 6:52:48 PM)
OK Guys in one of my PBEM's I have just suffered the biggest dissapointment in the game yet (and I mean the mechanics). The situation I have an Army of 100k soldiers at the road junction hex above Bandoeng on Java A strong garrison on Bandoeng A strong garrison at Tjijitap And a second army of 100k at Djojakarta. Both of my main armies are dug in but my southern force is under heavy pressure and forts are falling. Just in case of trouble I garrisoned the hex behind Djojakarta leading to Tjijitap to secure my retreat path. My opponent para dropped into Tjijitap and Bandoeng (taking heavy casualties) at the same time as launching an attack on my southern army which achieved 4 to 1 odds with forts at level 2. I therefore anticipated a retreat to the hex which only I controlled which would be bad but not disastrous. Instead my entire army surrendered To put it mildly the land combat mechanics have left me throwing things at my monitor in disgust. Have I misunderstood something about how this should work I am really viewing this as a game breaker in my current game. If I have made a mistake thats one thing but I am really really pissed off with this one HELP !! Andy

String -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 7:00:57 PM)
can't retreat into hexes controlled by both sides, an old issue addon: it's WAD as having joint controlled hexes open to retreat would lead to some exploits..

Andy Mac -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 7:02:18 PM)
But the hex was only controlled by me String. I agree that the paras had made Tjiljap contested but there was a hex between them with my forces in it alone therefore uncontested Andy

tsimmonds -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 7:04:36 PM)
the hex you retreat to has to be able to trace supply to a friendly base or dot.

AmiralLaurent -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 7:08:11 PM)
All land movements in WITP is based on bases. You need a friendly base to go to leave a hex shared with the enemy. In this case, dropping paras at two bases at the same time may be a gamey move by your opponent. They had few chances to do anything in this place except to cut (for the game) any retreat path and so your whole army surrendered.

Andy Mac -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 7:09:38 PM)
You have got to be kidding me on I secure my lines of retreat by garrisoning my retreat hex and this hex is uncontested throughout the period. But because my opponent drops a few paras that are destroyed in the turn they land because of the size of my garrison in the base hex declares the hex 120 miles from the front contested for 1 day my entire army surrenders.... You are kidding me on right ?

Andy Mac -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 7:11:29 PM)
OK this is insane if this is the case it is a complete and utter nonsence and destroys my faith in the mechanics of land combat.

String -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 7:11:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac You have got to be kidding me on I secure my lines of retreat by garrisoning my retreat hex and this hex is uncontested throughout the period. But because my opponent drops a few paras that are destroyed in the turn they land because of the size of my garrison in the base hex declares the hex 120 miles from the front contested for 1 day my entire army surrenders.... You are kidding me on right ? this, is what we call an exploit. Have a little chat with your opponent. I think this rule was made to stop the retreats into jungles with no friendly base within a 1000 miles...

tsimmonds -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 7:13:05 PM)
sad but true. your opponent gamed your army's surrender. maybe time for yet another house rule, or a different opponent.

AmiralLaurent -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 7:16:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac You have got to be kidding me on I secure my lines of retreat by garrisoning my retreat hex and this hex is uncontested throughout the period. But because my opponent drops a few paras that are destroyed in the turn they land because of the size of my garrison in the base hex declares the hex 120 miles from the front contested for 1 day my entire army surrenders.... You are kidding me on right ? No People may say the rumor of Japanese paratroops cutting the retreat was enough for the Allied commander to surrender rather than ordering retreat. That may be a probability. But in WITP it's a 100% probability. The key to avoid large losses in land combat (in mass surrenders or retreat) is to retreat before being forced out. For this you need to send your troops to a friendly city, they will refuse to accept orders to march to the next hex. But once they will be in the hex (and enemy are no more in the same hex as them) you may give them orders as you want. It was better in RL to retreat in order rather than in disorder after a successfull enemy attack. So it is in WITP. That is one of the few good points of the land combat model, that needs some severe reworking to be accurate.

Andy Mac -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 7:18:22 PM)
OK I am calming down now but I am very dissapointed by the way this has panned out in game. Im off to do turns in other PBEM's and ponder on this one a bit Thanks guys I guess I am just a bit follish where the land combat routine is concerned

String -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 7:18:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac You have got to be kidding me on I secure my lines of retreat by garrisoning my retreat hex and this hex is uncontested throughout the period. But because my opponent drops a few paras that are destroyed in the turn they land because of the size of my garrison in the base hex declares the hex 120 miles from the front contested for 1 day my entire army surrenders.... You are kidding me on right ? No People may say the rumor of Japanese paratroops cutting the retreat was enough for the Allied commander to surrender rather than ordering retreat. That may be a probability. But in WITP it's a 100% probability. The key to avoid large losses in land combat (in mass surrenders or retreat) is to retreat before being forced out. For this you need to send your troops to a friendly city, they will refuse to accept orders to march to the next hex. But once they will be in the hex (and enemy are no more in the same hex as them) you may give them orders as you want. It was better in RL to retreat in order rather than in disorder after a successfull enemy attack. So it is in WITP. That is one of the few good points of the land combat model, that needs some severe reworking to be accurate. i sure hope that such exploits don't happen in our little 3vs3 PBEM.. hint

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 7:23:04 PM)
Personally I think it's complete doodoo. [:-] At the very least, retreats should not be blocked into hexes which have friendly units, and this should be qualified by being at least brigade sized. AND...you should slap your opponent for being a knob.[8D] I'm getting sick of having to make house rules for the game to be playable. Hopefully some serious effort is being made to alleviate this severely crippled land combat model. One of the many reasons a game this size and complex can't simply be cut off from support a few months after release like others can. Just no way.

latosusi -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 7:23:53 PM)
[&:]Certainly, not the fate of the numerous regiments/divisions should be decided so quickly?

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 7:26:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac OK I am calming down now but I am very dissapointed by the way this has panned out in game. Im off to do turns in other PBEM's and ponder on this one a bit Thanks guys I guess I am just a bit follish where the land combat routine is concerned Yeah, you and many others. I lost a game a few months ago same area (but it was a movement bug possibly caused by another upgrade fixing yet more problems post release) that was well into July 42. We'ed be into 44 by now.[:(]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 7:27:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: latosusi [&:]Certainly, not the fate of the numerous regiments/divisions should be decided so quickly? Of course not. Quite silly this is the way it is considering the wealth of wargaming pedigree around here.

AmiralLaurent -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 7:30:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: String quote: ORIGINAL: AmiralLaurent quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac You have got to be kidding me on I secure my lines of retreat by garrisoning my retreat hex and this hex is uncontested throughout the period. But because my opponent drops a few paras that are destroyed in the turn they land because of the size of my garrison in the base hex declares the hex 120 miles from the front contested for 1 day my entire army surrenders.... You are kidding me on right ? No People may say the rumor of Japanese paratroops cutting the retreat was enough for the Allied commander to surrender rather than ordering retreat. That may be a probability. But in WITP it's a 100% probability. The key to avoid large losses in land combat (in mass surrenders or retreat) is to retreat before being forced out. For this you need to send your troops to a friendly city, they will refuse to accept orders to march to the next hex. But once they will be in the hex (and enemy are no more in the same hex as them) you may give them orders as you want. It was better in RL to retreat in order rather than in disorder after a successfull enemy attack. So it is in WITP. That is one of the few good points of the land combat model, that needs some severe reworking to be accurate. i sure hope that such exploits don't happen in our little 3vs3 PBEM.. hint I don't think we will have this kind of problem. In this game trying to work with teammates is more important for me that the final outcome of the war. And I know enough the gamey tactics of the game to not use one by accident.

AmiralLaurent -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 7:32:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac OK I am calming down now but I am very dissapointed by the way this has panned out in game. Im off to do turns in other PBEM's and ponder on this one a bit Thanks guys I guess I am just a bit follish where the land combat routine is concerned Calm down one day and then talk to your opponent.

latosusi -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 7:42:55 PM)
I used (still am) to play Gary's previous games (Pac ? Wir). It was the same problem. But now you have 1 day round instead of 1 week. And there were some automatic reinforcements. Overall i believe ground combat needs mega improvements. You don't really know anything about your opponent except (1000 men, 10 gun, 10 AFV bla bla). Are they hardened combat troops or construction workers?

ChezDaJez -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 8:16:48 PM)
quote: In this case, dropping paras at two bases at the same time may be a gamey move by your opponent. They had few chances to do anything in this place except to cut (for the game) any retreat path and so your whole army surrendered. I'm kinda of torn on this one. On one hand, it's a valid military tactic to cut off supply and retreat options with paratroops. What good are paratroopers if you can't use them in the way they were intended to be used? On the other, its gamey because of the way ZOCs are modeled in the game. Dropping 500-1000 paratroops should not prevent an army's retreat to any great extent. Chez

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 8:22:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ChezDaJez quote: In this case, dropping paras at two bases at the same time may be a gamey move by your opponent. They had few chances to do anything in this place except to cut (for the game) any retreat path and so your whole army surrendered. I'm kinda of torn on this one. On one hand, it's a valid military tactic to cut off supply and retreat options with paratroops. What good are paratroopers if you can't use them in the way they were intended to be used? On the other, its gamey because of the way ZOCs are modeled in the game. Dropping 500-1000 paratroops should not prevent an army's retreat to any great extent. Chez It's too abstract a model to allow this. 1,000,000 men can be stopped by 10. Ridiculous. At the very least, the defeated units should be allowed into the enemy hex. If they suffer a subsequent retreat result NEXT TURN from the enemy units present in the retreat hex, then fine, I can live with that. But at least give the unit/s a chance. Why does everything have to be resolved in one turn in this game? How long is it?

Andy Mac -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 8:25:30 PM)
What annoys me as well is the way the transports dropping the para came in apparently unescorted to drop paras in bases with over 100 fighters between them from watching the turn I shot down many many transports but one or two got through I am sorry this just seems wrong to me

tsimmonds -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 8:27:29 PM)
quote: I'm getting sick of having to make house rules for the game to be playable. On the other hand, who would sacrifice parachute units in this way other someone who knew their sacrifice would achieve the disproportionate result described? There was no valid military objective for such a paradrop. It was gaming the system. Reasonable people can agree between themselves not to do such things. Do you call that a house rule, or just common sense, or would this be the pointless self-limitation of a pair of lam3rz??[;)]

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 8:28:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac What annoys me as well is the way the transports dropping the para came in apparently unescorted to drop paras in bases with over 100 fighters between them from watching the turn I shot down many many transports but one or two got through I am sorry this just seems wrong to me I know!!! Transport aircraft ops should be resolved in the air combat phase and be subject to the same routine as any other aircraft.

Mike Scholl -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 8:47:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: String quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac You have got to be kidding me on I secure my lines of retreat by garrisoning my retreat hex and this hex is uncontested throughout the period. But because my opponent drops a few paras that are destroyed in the turn they land because of the size of my garrison in the base hex declares the hex 120 miles from the front contested for 1 day my entire army surrenders.... You are kidding me on right ? this, is what we call an exploit. Have a little chat with your opponent. I think this rule was made to stop the retreats into jungles with no friendly base within a 1000 miles... Why does a lousy design decision have to be "worked out" between the players? The basic tennants of the rule are fine, but "contested" needs "definition". A force should have to meet at least a minimum number (it's a 3,000 sq mile hex) and/or minimum odds (at least 1 : 2 or something) to "contest" ownership of a hex. Otherwise the situation becomes a farce such as Andy has described. Saying "change opponants" is stupid---you've invested a lot of time and effort in a WITP game even if it's only gone a couple of months. You need to have a game that at lease limits idiotic possibilities to secondary issues. Land Combat is a mess currently, and needs more than a couple of "bandaids".

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 8:51:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl quote: ORIGINAL: String quote: ORIGINAL: Andy Mac You have got to be kidding me on I secure my lines of retreat by garrisoning my retreat hex and this hex is uncontested throughout the period. But because my opponent drops a few paras that are destroyed in the turn they land because of the size of my garrison in the base hex declares the hex 120 miles from the front contested for 1 day my entire army surrenders.... You are kidding me on right ? this, is what we call an exploit. Have a little chat with your opponent. I think this rule was made to stop the retreats into jungles with no friendly base within a 1000 miles... Why does a lousy design decision have to be "worked out" between the players? The basic tennants of the rule are fine, but "contested" needs "definition". A force should have to meet at least a minimum number (it's a 3,000 sq mile hex) and/or minimum odds (at least 1 : 2 or something) to "contest" ownership of a hex. Otherwise the situation becomes a farce such as Andy has described. Saying "change opponants" is stupid---you've invested a lot of time and effort in a WITP game even if it's only gone a couple of months. You need to have a game that at lease limits idiotic possibilities to secondary issues. Land Combat is a mess currently, and needs more than a couple of "bandaids". Simply implement what I suggested in RED in an earlier post on this thread and let the units do the deciding.

2ndACR -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 8:58:46 PM)
Here I was thinking the no movement bug had bitten again in the same hex. HMMMPPPPHHH.

Ron Saueracker -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 9:00:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: 2ndACR Here I was thinking the no movement bug had bitten again in the same hex. HMMMPPPPHHH. When I first saw the thread I was thinking exactly that.[:D] Good news is, whatever bit us seems to be squashed or simply gone bye bye.

2ndACR -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 9:02:20 PM)
I hope so. That pissed me off something fierce.

marky -> RE: Army Disaster on Java is this a bug (1/31/2005 9:07:26 PM)
[/quote] It's too abstract a model to allow this. 1,000,000 men can be stopped by 10. Ridiculous. At the very least, the defeated units should be allowed into the enemy hex. If they suffer a subsequent retreat result NEXT TURN from the enemy units present in the retreat hex, then fine, I can live with that. But at least give the unit/s a chance. Why does everything have to be resolved in one turn in this game? How long is it? [/quote] totally even if the a force is blocking a route, then it would be NO contest at ALL if the force that was cutting the MUCH MUCH larger force was attacked by that much larger force a 100k man army stopped by a sqaud? a platoon? a company? abattalion? a brigade? a regiment? NO FRAKKIIN WAY not even a DIVISION could stop them, its been said that 3 men are required to dislodge ONE man defending, and this holds any value AT ALL there no frakkin way even a divison could cut off the retreat of an ARMY[8\|] totslly rediculous

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.046875