Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

Look at the 'realistic' combat occurring on Wake! Wasn't this the scale of one of the Kyushu Landing set for November 1945? Cannot wait for AE...

if you look at your garrison then there´s no need to cry about your opponent´s invasion. No chance to fit all those troops on Wake, not even your baseforces alone would have fit on that atoll I guess. Doesn´t mean I´m doing it differently in my WITP games but when you say you can´t wait for AE then it has to be because of both sides, insane number of Japanese troops as the defender (with an even more insane fort level) and an insane number of Allied troops as the attacker.

Upper portion used with permission of www.subart.net, copyright John Meeks

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mistmatz

I feel atoll house rules are needed in the current WitP incarnation but a specific number of troops, doubled for the attacker could hold forever if behind decent forts. Well at least unless it's totally cut off. Not sure if this is practical gamewise with WitP as it is now.

Guess I'm just another guy waiting for the joys of AE...

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I think placing a limit on Forts in Big B would be OK.  What number would be decent?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

For what it's worth (not much) I'm not sure introducing a HR on fort limits for atolls is the way to go.
1) I can't think of an historical example of not allowing concrete & steel re-enforced bunkers, and entrenchments to be built if you want to expend the effort.
2) If there is to be a desirable limit on atoll defenses - I would think a maximum garrison limit would be more in order...I mean you couldn't realistically maintain 1,000,000 troops on a 1 square mile atoll - there are physical limits to such a confined space.

My 2c anyway
B

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I think placing a limit on Forts in Big B would be OK.  What number would be decent?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

For what it's worth (not much) I'm not sure introducing a HR on fort limits for atolls is the way to go.
1) I can't think of an historical example of not allowing concrete & steel re-enforced bunkers, and entrenchments to be built if you want to expend the effort.
2) If there is to be a desirable limit on atoll defenses - I would think a maximum garrison limit would be more in order...I mean you couldn't realistically maintain 1,000,000 troops on a 1 square mile atoll - there are physical limits to such a confined space.

My 2c anyway
B

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I think placing a limit on Forts in Big B would be OK.  What number would be decent?

AH, Master Brian appears , Sensai. Like many things in WITP, the designers seemed to take the extreme cases rather than the average. Most historians consider the invasion of Betio to be an object lesson for how NOT to do an amphibious assault. Even though it was touch an go through the first day an casualties were considered to be beyond the acceptable limit, the whole battle lasted three days with complete annilation of the Japanese garrison. The fortifications at Tarawa were the best the Japanese constructed on any atoll. Point being that it is pure fantasy to have any sizable battle last for weeks on an atoll. It was just geographically impossible. The first battle of Wake Island was over in a day. Once the IJN realize they had not brought enough, the quickly withdrew. One of the PTO games I playe had this in it: if the assualting force became combat ineffective, it loaded back up on the transports automatically. If you cannot overwhelm the defenses of an atoll in short order you have no choice. It is not possible to maintain 20 k or moretroops on a beach head for more than a few days.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

For what it's worth (not much) I'm not sure introducing a HR on fort limits for atolls is the way to go.
1) I can't think of an historical example of not allowing concrete & steel re-enforced bunkers, and entrenchments to be built if you want to expend the effort.
2) If there is to be a desirable limit on atoll defenses - I would think a maximum garrison limit would be more in order...I mean you couldn't realistically maintain 1,000,000 troops on a 1 square mile atoll - there are physical limits to such a confined space.

My 2c anyway
B

quote:

ORIGINAL: John 3rd

I think placing a limit on Forts in Big B would be OK.  What number would be decent?

quote:

ORIGINAL: FOW

Fortifications aren't just bigger and better pillboxes and bunkers. There are area defences and depth to think about. No way can you lay a minefield and barbed wire entanglement, backed by MG and ATG positions providing enfilading fire with artillery at stand-off ranges on a spit of sand and coral less than 100m wide.
IMHO a limit on forts recognises the lack of 'defence in depth'

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bogo Mil

It is very very difficult to model fortifications in a game like witp. Forts are expanded step by step. In reality, you had to decide which kind of fortifications you want, then start building them. When the enemy attacks, the forts are built, or they are not ready yet. The thing on the picture may qualify as a level 9 fort - but the same thing only half ready is certainly not a level 6 or 7 fort (as it would be in witp after ca. 1/2 of the possible fortification work done). It would most probably have very weak spots and could be sized easily. Thus it would be a huge risk to try building such a monster. In witp, you can construct like crazy and it will benefit you whenever the enemy attacks.

I think house rules should not only restrict things which were impossible in reality, but also restrict things which are not handled well by the game engine. Yes, you could build lvl 9 forts on an atoll - but this would have severe disadvantage not represented in the game. Thus it should not be allowed to do so in the game.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Big B

I agree with all of the comments on fortifications, but unfortunately witp models it in it's own way. Yes, a level 9 fortification shouldn't be a level 6 before completion in a more perfect game engine.

But it is what it is.  I note that in John's game Canoerebel still took Wake after all the effort in troops and fortifications. So ultimately all that effort and supply consumption is gone now.

So, it shows you can overcome anything in the game, which is why - in the final analysis, I would lean toward "do what you like, they will have to find a way to overcome it."

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


I fear that in AE atoll invasion will be easier than in WITP as you know your enemy can´t have more than 6000 troops...

Upper portion used with permission of www.subart.net, copyright John Meeks

quote:

ORIGINAL: Feurer Krieg

quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


I fear that in AE atoll invasion will be easier than in WITP as you know your enemy can´t have more than 6000 troops...

Atoll invasion should be easier than it currently is. These current situations of weeks and weeks of combat on an atoll are completely ahistorical. The only atoll that ever held against the attackers was the first attack at Wake. And the second time around, it went very quickly as it should.

I think it is good for atolls to be hard to defend, as it increases the importance of larger island/coastal bases, as well as increases the importance of how you use your navy.