River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (Full Version)

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



Message

Tophat -> River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/15/2005 4:06:38 AM)



I'm in a pbm game as the japanese with ADavidB and we have had acouple of these crucial rivercrossing situations cropup. I just managed to smack a 3 Chinese corps attack back from the railcrossing above Hengchow.Getting an upclose look at how important a rivercrossing site is on the defence.
On the other hand at Singapore the roles were reversed and its taken till April 6th for me to get the troops onto Singapore and in low disruption/fatigue to do this:

Ground combat at Singapore

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 166787 troops, 1578 guns, 27 vehicles

Defending force 50060 troops, 291 guns, 0 vehicles

Japanese engineers reduce fortifications to 6

Japanese assault odds: 14 to 1 (fort level 6)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Singapore base !!!


Japanese ground losses:
1402 casualties reported
Guns lost 67
Vehicles lost 1

Allied ground losses:
34293 casualties reported
Guns lost 249

[&o]
I was expecting a more prolonged process of base reduction,but i'm by no means complaining with results. Good commanders and having <100>planning in all my troop formations seems to do wonders.
Oh,the reason its taken me this long to actually mount this attack was due to the Allies pickingup and moving wholesale into the Singapore fortress,kind of left me looking around as it were.

I think this is a good try at a fix to extend ground combats and limit the Infantry Blitzkriegs. What say you all?



tsimmonds -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/15/2005 4:23:44 AM)

I like it a lot. Makes rivers be more than just a different color hexside. Turns river crossings into the deliberate operations that they had to be. But if an attacker can get across in sufficient force, the sudden surprise loss of a bridge-head can be devastating to a defender who was expecting his river line to hold.



CMDRMCTOAST -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/15/2005 6:03:52 AM)

Works for me also even though I got punished badly in India cause of it
but it slows the advances to a more realistic pace.



Yamato hugger -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/15/2005 7:34:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: CMDRMCTOAST

Works for me also even though I got punished badly in India cause of it
but it slows the advances to a more realistic pace.


Actually I have found the reverse to be true. Because of the automatic attack, instead of taking a turn to cross the river and the next turn to attack the base, now they simply cross and keep right on going (I am refering to empty bases here).

I think the current system (meaning the auto-attack) is fine for contested crossings. 2 peves I have with the current land movement:

1) Using rail movement while advancing into enemy controlled hexes.

2) Using rail mocement out of an enemy controlled base.

Edit:
quote:

Karl von Clousewitz
You mispelled his name.



Halsey -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/15/2005 7:36:38 AM)

Oh no!
Don't start this thread again!
I can hear Oleg crying already![:D]



Halsey -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/15/2005 7:41:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: CMDRMCTOAST

Works for me also even though I got punished badly in India cause of it
but it slows the advances to a more realistic pace.


Actually I have found the reverse to be true. Because of the automatic attack, instead of taking a turn to cross the river and the next turn to attack the base, now they simply cross and keep right on going (I am refering to empty bases here).




Any player that has left a potential defensive position open deserves the loss.
Bad strategy can't be blamed on the mechanics in this case.[;)]





Tophat -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/15/2005 8:49:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

quote:

ORIGINAL: CMDRMCTOAST

Works for me also even though I got punished badly in India cause of it
but it slows the advances to a more realistic pace.


Actually I have found the reverse to be true. Because of the automatic attack, instead of taking a turn to cross the river and the next turn to attack the base, now they simply cross and keep right on going (I am refering to empty bases here).




Any player that has left a potential defensive position open deserves the loss.
Bad strategy can't be blamed on the mechanics in this case.[;)]





so you like the rivercrossing Shock attack rule then correct? Giving the geographic barrier of a river some form of defensive advantage.



tsimmonds -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/15/2005 11:50:25 AM)

He'd better like it; it was his idea[:D]



Halsey -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/15/2005 2:00:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

He'd better like it; it was his idea[:D]


[:D][:D][:D]
Kid gets the credit for pushing it through.[;)]

My "ONE" contribution to WITP.
Being a former grunt, it was the least I could do.[;)]



Yamato hugger -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/15/2005 6:48:23 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey
Being a former grunt, it was the least I could do.[;)]



Bah, Rangers arent GRUNTS. Damn wanna-bes [:'(]

(BTW, every thanksgiving I spent on active duty was at Camp Frank D Merril in Dahlonega, Ga. I was training Rangers at Eglin AFB when my son was concieved (I went back to Benning for 1 night to get the mail) and was in Dahlonega when he was born training Rangers). That was from 75 to 78. He was born Dec 1 '76.

"I wanna be an airbone ranger,
full of sh*t and scared of danger" USAIC airborne training cadence song. [:D]



Halsey -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/15/2005 9:49:49 PM)

Dahlonega was my favorite phase of the training.[;)]
The instructors told us there was a nudist camp at the bottom of the mountain.
We were all doing pushups on the side of the mountain for looking down.[:D]

By the time I got to Eglin I was pulling aggressor duty.
Since I'd already passed all my patrols.[:'(]



Yamato hugger -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/15/2005 10:59:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Dahlonega was my favorite phase of the training.[;)]
The instructors told us there was a nudist camp at the bottom of the mountain.
We were all doing pushups on the side of the mountain for looking down.[:D]

By the time I got to Eglin I was pulling aggressor duty.
Since I'd already passed all my patrols.[:'(]


I was there 9 or 10 times and thats the first Ive heard of it. They either built it after I was long gone, or more likely pure BS [:D] [:D] [:D] I loved it up there. Very pretty area.

Eglin was a pure hell hole to students. Started right off with the SERS compound and went downhill from there. First time I went I jumped in with the students. Airforce used to use (probably still do) it for a bombing range. Got to see a lot of fireworks there. That, and going to the beach at Ft Walton Beach were the only good things about it.



Halsey -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/16/2005 1:11:24 AM)

I'm sure it was BS.
They enjoyed tormenting the starving students.[:D]

Eglin was, and still is, a hellhole.
We staged out of there a few times with the Special Ops Air Wing.
The AC-130's were our artillery support.[;)]
They supported us more than a few times during operations.

My 1st Sgt in the batt trained for the Son Tay raid there.
If you wanted to hear him curse a whole bunch, all you had to do was mention Eglin AFB.[:D]



Halsey -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/16/2005 2:45:40 AM)

Sorry Tophat!
Got off topic.[;)]



Tophat -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/16/2005 3:46:38 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Halsey

Sorry Tophat!
Got off topic.[;)]



LOL!!! Ya think?

So we have several thumbsup for the river-crossing rule,right?



Wolfpack_MatrixForum -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/16/2005 11:08:02 PM)

Its good for when you are defending a hex with a river between you and your enemy. Its horrible for when you have a river at your back. You bring in reinforcements and they immediately shock attack the opposing forces. Doesn't matter if you have been there 2 hours or 2 years. That part of the rule needs tweaking....



Mark VII -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/17/2005 1:44:13 AM)

River Shock attacks can also be used in the attackers favor. During my game with Captain Ed, air recon told me only one unit was in Mandalay, I assumed a Base Force. My plan was to march in quickly using the road that crosses the river, be forced into a prompt shock attack the turn I arrive and thus take the airfield before he could remove the two fighter units I strongly suspected to be based there. The op was carried out according to plan with 20 a/c and two squadrons destroyed. BANZAI!!!

------------------------------------------------------------
Ground combat at Mandalay

Japanese Shock attack

Attacking force 1768 troops, 3 guns, 0 vehicles

Defending force 1626 troops, 11 guns, 4 vehicles

Japanese assault odds: 20 to 1 (fort level 0)

Japanese forces CAPTURE Mandalay base !!!

Allied aircraft
no flights

Allied aircraft losses
Buffalo I: 5 destroyed(really 10)
Hurricane II: 5 destroyed(really 10)

Japanese ground losses:
3 casualties reported
Guns lost 1

Allied ground losses:
117 casualties reported
Guns lost 5
Vehicles lost 1
--------------------------------------------------



JeffroK -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/17/2005 8:53:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Wolfpack

Its good for when you are defending a hex with a river between you and your enemy. Its horrible for when you have a river at your back. You bring in reinforcements and they immediately shock attack the opposing forces. Doesn't matter if you have been there 2 hours or 2 years. That part of the rule needs tweaking....


Ditto,

No arguement with the Shock attack moving into an enemy held location, but I looped South from Mandalay, Attacked a Jap Force from a land hexside but when I moved new forces across the river they forced an Automatic Shock Attack



Yamato hugger -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/17/2005 3:38:41 PM)

Only the actual units moving across the river attack, not everything in the hex. There should come a point where you have a solid bridgehead and the auto-attacks stop however. My .02



tsimmonds -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/17/2005 4:01:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Only the actual units moving across the river attack, not everything in the hex. There should come a point where you have a solid bridgehead and the auto-attacks stop however. My .02

Back in 1.5, I once by accident set a single unit in a hex to shock attack, while the other units in the hex were set to defend. Only the one unit attacked, but all of my units in the hex were hit by the doubled defensive fire, and all received considerable disruption and fatigue as well. Do you know from firsthand that this has been changed?



Yamato hugger -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/17/2005 4:20:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Only the actual units moving across the river attack, not everything in the hex. There should come a point where you have a solid bridgehead and the auto-attacks stop however. My .02

Back in 1.5, I once by accident set a single unit in a hex to shock attack, while the other units in the hex were set to defend. Only the one unit attacked, but all of my units in the hex were hit by the doubled defensive fire, and all received considerable disruption and fatigue as well. Do you know from firsthand that this has been changed?


THAT part of it probably hasnt been. Dont know for sure, but I would suspect it hasnt. The units that were in the hex do not take disruption from moving over the river, and they dont attack. That much I am certain of. The last few times I took Singapore I watched the fatigue/disruption of the divisions that I had there resting for the attack after they crossed the river.



tsimmonds -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/17/2005 4:29:55 PM)

Just to see if I have this straight:

You were attacking Singapore. You brought in reinforcements, which triggered the river/shock attack rule. Only the reinforcing unit participated in the shock attack, and none of your other units in the Singapore hex took defensive fire or received increased disruption or fatigue as a result of the reinforcing unit's shock attack.



Yamato hugger -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/17/2005 4:52:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Just to see if I have this straight:

You were attacking Singapore. You brought in reinforcements, which triggered the river/shock attack rule. Only the reinforcing unit participated in the shock attack, and none of your other units in the Singapore hex took defensive fire or received increased disruption or fatigue as a result of the reinforcing unit's shock attack.


Correct. The divisions that were there did not increase in fatigue or disruption. I cant say that they didnt get hit. I can say that if they did get hit, it wasnt more than they rested off in the turn so the net result was their fatigue/disruption dropped during the turn.

Edit: I should note that in both cases, the allies made no effort to evac troops from Malaya. These were both e mail games.



Tophat -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/18/2005 11:17:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

Just to see if I have this straight:

You were attacking Singapore. You brought in reinforcements, which triggered the river/shock attack rule. Only the reinforcing unit participated in the shock attack, and none of your other units in the Singapore hex took defensive fire or received increased disruption or fatigue as a result of the reinforcing unit's shock attack.


This is the same situation I was in as well in my Singapore attack. Also alot of the casualties I took were not actual dead/losses.
My problem was i didn't bring enough engineers to the party to begin with.



RUPD3658 -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/19/2005 5:20:37 PM)

This rule is kicking my ass is the PI. My units can't seem to cross into Clark Filed at the same time and are being shot to pieces.



1275psi -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/26/2005 12:41:48 AM)

I LOVE THIS RULE!!!


there -thats my opinion



tsimmonds -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/26/2005 3:16:00 AM)

I'll let you know how I really feel here in a few days; getting ready to move into Singapore....but as a result of the auto shock-attack, I took HK the same turn I moved into the hex[:D]



Yamato hugger -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/26/2005 5:24:10 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: RUPD3658

This rule is kicking my ass is the PI. My units can't seem to cross into Clark Filed at the same time and are being shot to pieces.


My opinion for what its worth is this: Better to approach Clark from Naga and San Marc whatever at the same time. This forces the Allies to either surrender Clark to defend Manila (which personally I feel is a mistake) or abandon Manila to avoid being cut off. Hmmmm. Isnt this what Mac did? [;)]



dereck -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/27/2005 3:43:36 AM)

I think the rule sucks.

Please see the picture below. I had units move up from Rangoon and engage the Japanese forces WITHOUT crossing any rivers. Then after a few turns I had other troops arrive from the north and west (which did cross rivers) BUT I WAS ALREADY ON THE OTHER SIDE!

Now ALL I can do is shock attack even when I specifically go through and set everything to deliberate attack.

I thought if you already had troops on the other side of the river you wouldn't shock attack.



[image]local://upfiles/13978/B91E26E40C824CB09C3AA853335608BF.jpg[/image]



Nikademus -> RE: River Crossings,good or bad for playability? (10/27/2005 4:11:26 AM)

I like the rule. Rivers mean something and encourage LCU movement other than the shortest distance between two points method. Burma is interesting in that the shortest distance means river assaults but flanking opportunities abound.





Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.9370117