What to do with all those ENG units? (Full Version)

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



Message

LargeSlowTarget -> What to do with all those ENG units? (3/15/2005 2:44:27 PM)

Probably opening an old can of worms here - I'm in mid-43 and scores of ENG units are showing up at the West Coast (mostly Seabees). I don't know what to do with them - I already have more than enough ENG units in the active areas, the rear bases are long maxed out and even newly captured bases are quickly built up. I have the impression that the engineers in WITP 'can do' too much too fast.

Furthermore, there is no real need for base maintenance - my frontline bases do not suffer much damage at the hands of the inept Japanese AI at this stage of the war, and when the AI did hit me hard in 1942, even the fewer ENG units back then were more than enough to repair the damage quickly. And apart from enemy bombs and shells, bases do not suffer damage from wear-and-tear, operational accidents, weather etc. that would need to be fixed by ENG units or base forces.

So I think bases should suffer random amounts of damage each turn, depending on climatic zone, terrain and weather, number of sorties, op losses (crash landings) etc., in order to give those ENG units a reason to exist. This would also consume supplies and tie down ships moving ENG units and supplies arond, helping to slow down the tempo of operations. Maybe the ENG units can also be given additional tasks, like malaria control and building camps (thus helping to improve moral and to reduce fatigue) or speeding up the loading/unloading process of ships in port. An option to disband surplus units would be nice, too. I know this is a dream, but... what else can I do with this flood of ENG units?



String -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/15/2005 2:45:38 PM)

Well, build those forward bases up even faster i guess [:D]



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/15/2005 3:01:02 PM)

IIRC somebody on this forum mentioned that there is a diminishing return and an upper limit regarding ENG units (above a certain number more ENG will have no further effect). Still I think they either need to be slowed down even more or given more tasks.



rhohltjr -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/15/2005 3:59:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Probably opening an old can of worms here - I'm in mid-43 and scores of ENG units are showing up at the West Coast (mostly Seabees). I don't know what to do with them - I already have more than enough ENG units in the active areas, the rear bases are long maxed out and even newly captured bases are quickly built up. I have the impression that the engineers in WITP 'can do' too much too fast.



My current game is early April 44' and things are no better. Invading Guam and Tinian gets bases already close to maxxed out size wise. Central Pac ENGs own Hawaii and Johnson Island and Enwetok.

South Pacific area is a big Allied RR area and still the ENGs keep rolling in.

Southwest Pac forces chasing Japanese up New Guinea coast, perhaps I shall use the ENGs as garrison forces and keep the INFs marching, however New Guinea can't last forever.

Don't the ENGs have any fighting capability? Mostly rated at 0 assault. Why is this?



Oliver Heindorf -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/15/2005 5:49:21 PM)

I assume you guys play against the AI...in PBEM you need all ENG's and you need them FAST.
you cannot have enough ENG'S against a pbem opponent, trust me.



Tom Hunter -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/15/2005 5:52:37 PM)

Against the AI you may have extra engineer units. Against a human you need everything. Also remember that the allies lost pretty much all the units that started in the SRA in the real war. If you had lost all of them you might be shorter on engineers too.

But the fact that you are winning and therefore have excess resources does not change the fact that many others will not be doing as well and need all the help they can get.



mike charley 7 -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/15/2005 6:57:44 PM)

Try changing the difficulty level.



Capt Cliff -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/15/2005 9:23:45 PM)

Bases should degrade if there is no engineering unit present to do the upkeep.



Bradley7735 -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/15/2005 9:35:44 PM)

By making a use for the allied see bees, you'll cause problems for the japanese. Since they don't have nearly as many eng units as the allies.

If you make it very difficult for the allies to build a base, it'll be impossible for the Japanese to do the same.

Do what I do. I put a see bee unit on any important base, even if it's built to max and has 9 forts. If you don't need them, either leave them on the west coast or put them on the many many backwater bases.

I say leave it alone. There are far more important issues to deal with.

bc



freeboy -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/15/2005 10:55:22 PM)

I cannot use all my eng in my pbem games.. just too many.. but aviation supprt is another story altogether



KPAX -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/15/2005 11:44:09 PM)

If it is early and you go up the Solomons, why not leave an enemy base, (a central base) build EVERYTHING (incliding the dots) to max and use those bases for training for planes.

If you go N of OZ, up NG, later in N Truk, Marianas, there would apprear to be plenty of spots to build if you use them as air training bases. Can not have enough of those.

In one of my games, the IJA took some of the bases in New Caledonia. I re took them and am building all the dots. That is air field 3 or 150 planes. There are like 5 of those. That is like 600+ planes that can train there. The dots build slowly and the SeaBees keep busy.



eMonticello -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/16/2005 1:46:36 AM)

Adopt a few house rules:

(5.1) Allies and Axis - Only one naval base unit of the same type and country and 2 air base units may be in a hex at any one time unless the hex also contains the unit’s HQ. (for example, it’s possible to have 2 DAK, 1 Dutch Naval, 1 USN, 2 USAAF, 2 RAF, 1 RN, 2 RAAF, and 1 RAN bases in the same hex since they each serve different naval and air units; however, it’s not possible to have 2 USN base forces in the same hex unless their HQ unit is in the same hex). If this rule is violated due to combat, then the units in violation must either move or be evacuated at the earliest possible time.

(5.2) Allies and Axis - Engineering units are required to expand airbases, ports, and fortifications beyond primitive levels. Only 3 engineering units beyond the base units may remain in the same hex when bases and ports are being expanded. The following chart provides the guidelines for expanding bases and ports.

[image]local://upfiles/5926/Ca825431806.jpg[/image]



Cmdrcain -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/16/2005 7:37:13 AM)

Even with 0 assault, engineers in with an attack force are supposed to help reduce the fortifications.

I didn't start to really take Singapore with its 22 allied lcus behind 9 fort till I finished up in phillipines and moved all the many construction, etc engineer groups to Johan and then sent thm in with the infantry etc assaulting singapore.. then the 9 fort went to 7 then 6 then 5 then 0 and 80,000 allied off to the japanese gulags.



LargeSlowTarget -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/16/2005 1:54:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff
Bases should degrade if there is no engineering unit present to do the upkeep.


That's what I'm advocating.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain
Even with 0 assault, engineers in with an attack force are supposed to help reduce the fortifications.


Dump question - does the game differentiate between combat and construction engineers?

EDIT: I'm so dumb I can't even spell it correctly [:D]



Sardaukar -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/16/2005 2:01:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

Dump question - does the game differentiate between combat and construction engineers?


I think I have read that only those engineers with assault value reduce fortifications..but then, there seem to be some evidence suggesting all engineers do. Waiting for someone knowledgeable to confirm..[:)]

Cheers,

M.S.



Milman -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/16/2005 4:44:28 PM)

What do you think about giving 3 AV support to those eng (building) units ?



Bradley7735 -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/16/2005 7:55:22 PM)

Only engineers with an assault value will help to reduce fortifications. The generic "Engineer" or "Engineer Vehicle" do not help with offensive land battles. You need enginners that look like this: "USMC engineer" or US Army Engineer. (I can't remember quite how they look).

Basically they are the engineers that come included in a normal division or battalion. There are also some pure engineer units that have offensive engineers, but they definitely don't have engineer vehicles with them.



Bradley7735 -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/16/2005 7:57:05 PM)

Milman,

I don't think it would be good to give AV support to not base force units. see bee's couldn't fix and arm airplanes any better than infantry men. Only those guys who are trained in maintaining airplanes should have AV support.

bc



foliveti -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/16/2005 8:08:29 PM)

quote:

Only engineers with an assault value will help to reduce fortifications. The generic "Engineer" or "Engineer Vehicle" do not help with offensive land battles. You need enginners that look like this: "USMC engineer" or US Army Engineer. (I can't remember quite how they look).


I believe it is the "(Blank)engineer squads which are considered combat engineers and they are the ones that assist in reducing fortifications. The generic "engineers" do not help reduce fortifications.



rhohltjr -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/16/2005 8:56:18 PM)

I would agree with the no extra AV rating but why no assault ability. Not even a 1? Engineers don't spend all their training or time building bridges over rivers and filling bomb craters. They do carry weapons.

I bet even HQ units can inflict terrible paper cuts and typewriter bashings in hand to hand combat.[:D]

Can't assault rating also mean defense against assault?
[sarc]Can zero assault rated ENG units be wiped out via sneak attack by 4 troopers (JNSL / Marines) from a sub launched life raft???[8|] [/sarc]



foliveti -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/16/2005 9:29:44 PM)

quote:

Can't assault rating also mean defense against assault?
[sarc]Can zero assault rated ENG units be wiped out via sneak attack by 4 troopers (JNSL / Marines) from a sub launched life raft??? [/sarc]


I seem to recall from my recent reread of the manual, that noncombat squads have a combat strenght of something like 1/10 of combat squads.



rhohltjr -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/16/2005 11:51:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: foliveti
I seem to recall from my recent reread of the manual, that noncombat squads have a combat strenght of something like 1/10 of combat squads.


It's just like these guys to hide some info in some sort of manual!!!![;)]

I wish they could do more. I have 3 ENG units sitting at/on/in an undefended Japanese base and they can't do anything because they have not even a single unit of assault power. [8D] I am sending in some really bloodthirsty base force guys (with assault > 0) to form up an attack, so I can capture the base.

Hoo Yaahh and Semper Fi base force killer force.[sm=00000036.gif]



Sardaukar -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/17/2005 5:14:39 PM)

I did actually read manual again...and it says that only "engineer squads" are considered "combat engineers". And it says that "combat engineers" help to reduce fortification levels. Thus, plain engineers don't...but then, there have been lot of changes in patches...

Cheers,

M.S.



eMonticello -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/18/2005 1:40:48 AM)

Only combat engineers would intentionally engage the enemy. They were, after all, trained for that mission. To have a non-combat engineer engage in combat would be equivalent to ordering a Signal Corp radio operator to assault a strongpoint. It just wouldn't happen under normal circumstances.

quote:

ORIGINAL: rhohltjr
I would agree with the no extra AV rating but why no assault ability. Not even a 1? Engineers don't spend all their training or time building bridges over rivers and filling bomb craters. They do carry weapons.



Cmdrcain -> RE: What to do with all those ENG units? (3/18/2005 7:35:23 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: LargeSlowTarget

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capt Cliff
Bases should degrade if there is no engineering unit present to do the upkeep.


That's what I'm advocating.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Cmdrcain
Even with 0 assault, engineers in with an attack force are supposed to help reduce the fortifications.


Dump question - does the game differentiate between combat and construction engineers?

EDIT: I'm so dumb I can't even spell it correctly [:D]



Checked, a number of construction type engineers have assault ratings, 2-5

like the road construction, and others.






Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.78125