Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: hexside control

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: hexside control Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: hexside control - 6/1/2009 12:16:51 AM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		YH I started a thread in devpt forum on this one I think its a unique little issue lets switch the debate to there

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 331
RE: hexside control - 6/1/2009 12:51:27 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline 		Need to password this thread - keep them damn devs out

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 332
RE: hexside control - 6/1/2009 1:16:52 AM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Its an unoccupied base, so why shouldnt part of the advancing force be allowed to continue to advance while another part secures the area? I dont see a thing in the world "exploitive" about that.


It isn't what i said? If the enemy units are bottled up in a small city there is no problems for the other forces keeping the advance. Of course the ideal was to have % of hex ownership.

(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 333
RE: hexside control - 6/1/2009 1:26:57 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline 		I was actually referring to Casters comment

_____________________________


(in reply to Dili)
Post #: 334
RE: hexside control - 6/1/2009 3:09:51 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline 		I dont think I have even mentioned the combat events report yet. This is what this looks like:

COMBAT EVENTS FOR 12/16/41

ADJUST TASK FORCE MISSIONS
CALCULATE RANGE TO ENEMY
CALCULATE AIR SUPERIORITY
ASSIGN COMPUTER CONTROLLED UNITS
Combat Events:
NAVAL REACTION PHASE
LOADING/UNLOADING TASK FORCES
Amphibious TF 319 unloading at Batangas
Amphibious TF 86 unloading at Kudat
TASK FORCE LOADING/UNLOADING COMPLETE
CALCULATING TASK FORCE PATHS
MINESWEEPING OPERATIONS
NAVAL MOVEMENT PHASE
Task Force 139 encounters enemy Task Force at 56 , 90
Japanese Ships Reported to be Approaching!
Allied TF begins to get underway
Amphibious TF 139 withdrawing to Takao after combat
Task Force 100 encounters enemy Task Force at 72 , 90
ADJUST SHIP FUEL
NIGHT AIR OPERATIONS PHASE
AIRCRAFT LANDING
SHIP CREWS PERFORM DAMAGE CONTROL
AMC Hokoku Maru sinks....
CPT Koh, A. has been KILLED
SURFACE COMBAT CHECK
DIVIDE CRIPPLED TFs
SHIP CREWS PERFORM DAMAGE CONTROL
xAK Syoka Maru sinks....
SHIP CREWS PERFORM DAMAGE CONTROL
Amphibious TF 86 unloading at Kudat
Amphibious TF 319 unloading at Batangas
REPAIRING SHIPS
END 12 HOUR PULSE
DIVIDE CRIPPLED TFs
CHECKING TF FUEL
TF'S RETURN TO PORT
Combat Events:
NAVAL REACTION PHASE
LOADING/UNLOADING TASK FORCES
Troops from 1st Sasebo SNLF Coy lost during loading of TF 159
Amphibious TF 319 unloading at Batangas
TASK FORCE LOADING/UNLOADING COMPLETE
CALCULATING TASK FORCE PATHS
MINESWEEPING OPERATIONS
NAVAL MOVEMENT PHASE
ADJUST SHIP FUEL
AIR OPERATIONS PHASE : AM
E7K2 Alf sighting report: 3 Allied ships at 111,108 near Truk, speed 10, Moving Northwest
E13A1 Jake sighting report: 5 Allied ships at 85,73 near Camiguin, speed 10, Moving Northwest
E13A1 Jake sighting report: 5 Allied ships at 52,93 near Billiton , Speed 23 , Moving Southwest
E13A1 Jake sighting report: Allied xAP at 48,91 near Palembang , Speed 8 , Moving Southwest
E13A1 Jake sighting report: 4 Allied ships at 52,90 near Muntok , Speed 6 , Moving Southeast
Ki-21-IIa Sally reports object under water at 85, 83 near Legaspi
TF 57 observes Allied Light Bomber at 80,73 near Vigan
TF 146 sighted by Allied Aircraft at 80,74 near San Fernando
TF 44 followed by Allied Aircraft at 80,68 near Laoag
TF 240 shadowed by Allied Recon at 81,79 near Atimonan
xAK Yamura Maru observes Allied Light Bomber at 81,72 near Laoag
TF 102 shadowed by Allied Fighter at 79,89 near Cagayan
TF 13 followed by Allied Aircraft at 83,90 near Siargao
Escort of 36 x Ki-43-Ib Oscar from 64th Sentai loses contact with raid, proceeding onto target Singapore
AIRCRAFT LANDING
SHIP CREWS PERFORM DAMAGE CONTROL
DIVIDE CRIPPLED TFs
AIR OPERATIONS PHASE : PM
H6K4 Mavis sighting report: 3 Allied ships at 72,90 near Tawi Tawi , Speed 2 , Moving Northwest
F1M2 Pete sighting report: 6 Allied ships at 82,102 near Morotai, speed 19, Moving Northwest
E13A1 Jake reports diving submarine at 82, 104 near Gebe
E7K2 Alf sighting report: 2 Allied ships at 78,107 near Kofiau, speed 18, Moving Southeast
E14Y1 Glen reports shape below surface at 132, 161 near Suva
Ki-21-IIa Sally sighting report: 2 Allied ships at 50,84 near Singapore , Speed 0 , Moving East
Ki-48-Ib Lily sighting report: 4 Allied ships at 80,66 near Swatow, speed 12, Moving East
TF 117 observes Allied Level Bomber at 57,88 near Sambas
TF 44 observes Allied Light Bomber at 80,68 near Laoag
TF 240 detected by Allied Fighter at 81,79 near Atimonan
TF 120 shadowed by Allied Medium Bomber at 79,83 near Roxas
Escort of 31 x Ki-43-Ib Oscar from 64th Sentai loses contact with raid, proceeding onto target
Escort of 9 x A5M4 Claude from Yamada Det S-2 loses contact with raid, proceeding onto target 108th RAF
AIRCRAFT LANDING
AIR TRANSPORT PHASE
AIRCRAFT LANDING
SHIP CREWS PERFORM DAMAGE CONTROL
SURFACE COMBAT CHECK
DIVIDE CRIPPLED TFs
SHIP CREWS PERFORM DAMAGE CONTROL
SHIP CREWS PERFORM DAMAGE CONTROL
Amphibious TF 319 unloading at Batangas
REPAIRING SHIPS
END 12 HOUR PULSE
DIVIDE CRIPPLED TFs
CHECKING TF FUEL
TF'S RETURN TO PORT
Japanese forces CAPTURE Kudat !!!
Japanese forces CAPTURE Batangas !!!
Japanese forces CAPTURE Kwangchowan !!!
Japanese forces CAPTURE Alor Star !!!
Japanese forces CAPTURE Gorontalo !!!
RECALCULATING ZONES OF CONTROL
SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS PHASE
MOVING OIL AND RESOURCES
PRODUCTION PHASE
SUPPLY MOVEMENT PHASE
CALCULATING SPOILAGE
AIRCRAFT REPAIR PHASE
AIRCRAFT SUPPLY PHASE
UPGRADING SHIPS
UPGRADING AIR UNITS
UPGRADING LAND UNITS
SUPPLY PHASE COMPLETE
END OF DAY
TRAINING SHIP CREWS
ADJUSTING AVIATION SUPPORT
LAND UNIT REPLACEMENT PHASE
AIR UNIT REPLACEMENT PHASE
MERGING SUB UNITS
SUB UNIT MERGE COMPLETE
DIVIDE CRIPPLED TFs
Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Amoy (83, 61)!
Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Chefoo (98, 46)!
Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Paoting (94, 40)!
Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Nakhon Ratchasima (58, 61)!
Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Ubon (62, 63)!
Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Udon Thani (61, 59)!
LEADER REASSIGNMENT PHASE
35th JNAF AF Unit arrives at Tokyo
SEARCHING FOR ADJACENT ENEMY UNITS
REASSIGNING TRANSPORT GROUPS
DISBANDING HUMAN CONTROLLED TASK FORCES
Takao Ku K-1 sub-groups COMBINING at Cagayan
Tainan Ku S-1 sub-groups COMBINING at Cagayan

_____________________________


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 335
RE: hexside control - 6/1/2009 4:41:47 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Its an unoccupied base, so why shouldnt part of the advancing force be allowed to continue to advance while another part secures the area? I dont see a thing in the world "exploitive" about that.


Because your troops are sitting at New York, today you order them to move to Boston and when you order them to move to Washington tomorrow they have already marched 15 miles South... lol, nothing more to say. And that´s no offense Sir...

_____________________________


(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 336
RE: hexside control - 6/1/2009 4:42:29 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

I was actually referring to Casters comment


Okay!

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 337
RE: hexside control - 6/1/2009 6:52:03 PM   
Barb


Posts: 2503
Joined: 2/27/2007
From: Bratislava, Slovakia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Its an unoccupied base, so why shouldnt part of the advancing force be allowed to continue to advance while another part secures the area? I dont see a thing in the world "exploitive" about that.


quote:


Note: This tactic is only useable by JFBs. AFBs arent allowed.


Actually, what you said is right, but what I consider bug is that it is possible for Japan only and allies cant do that (as you said).

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 338
RE: hexside control - 6/1/2009 8:01:22 PM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Its an unoccupied base, so why shouldnt part of the advancing force be allowed to continue to advance while another part secures the area? I dont see a thing in the world "exploitive" about that.


Because your troops are sitting at New York, today you order them to move to Boston and when you order them to move to Washington tomorrow they have already marched 15 miles South... lol, nothing more to say. And that´s no offense Sir...



What the hell? When three batallions arrive at a town, why can't one of them be tasked with securing the town and the other two continuing on if no enemy is present?

_____________________________

Surface combat TF fanboy

(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 339
RE: hexside control - 6/1/2009 8:50:53 PM   
Andy Mac

 

Posts: 15222
Joined: 5/12/2004
From: Alexandria, Scotland
Status: offline 		Both sides can do it and the legitimate way of achieving the same result to attack the base with 1 bn and then pursue with the other 2.

This is not a bug but a minor interaction issue between new features and old which is relevant in only a few bases - fixing it is more complicated than I first thought as you can do exactly the same thing risk free with attack/pursue it will go on the patch list

(in reply to String)
Post #: 340
RE: hexside control - 6/1/2009 9:05:04 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Its an unoccupied base, so why shouldnt part of the advancing force be allowed to continue to advance while another part secures the area? I dont see a thing in the world "exploitive" about that.


Because your troops are sitting at New York, today you order them to move to Boston and when you order them to move to Washington tomorrow they have already marched 15 miles South... lol, nothing more to say. And that´s no offense Sir...


Well what you describe would reset their march distance to zero in both AE and WitP.

You are trying to take an abstract game and imply that it duplicates the real world. Its a game, and games have limitations. And for the record, after review by the devs it was decided to leave it as it is.

What I am doing is really no different than putting my non-attacking units into reserve mode with pursuit set to ON. However, pursuit wont work in an attack where there are no defenders, so this "exploit" as you term it isnt doing anything that would or could be done were there actual defenders in the hex. I see no reason that a force shouldnt be allowed to use the bonus "pursuit" movement just because the other guy pulled his troops out. In effect what you are saying is that a players advance should be SLOWER in areas where there are no defenders than if there were. Which doesnt make sense to me.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Barb

quote:


Note: This tactic is only useable by JFBs. AFBs arent allowed.


Actually, what you said is right, but what I consider bug is that it is possible for Japan only and allies cant do that (as you said).


I didnt say the allied PLAYER couldnt do it, I said AFBs arent ALLOWED to do it

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 341
RE: hexside control - 6/2/2009 7:07:30 AM   
Flying Tiger

 

Posts: 496
Joined: 3/11/2008
From: ummmm... i HATE that question!
Status: offline 		Interesting debate. I do not see it as a 'cheat' - but it does frustrate me when the guy who knows all the little 'loopholes' gets an advantage  - either include these things as regular features in the game, or get rid of them. But dont leave us needing to read every last AAR just in case a new 'feature' is discovered.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 342
RE: Tora, Tora, Tora! - 6/2/2009 10:46:41 AM   
aciddrinker


Posts: 135
Joined: 2/22/2008
From: Poland
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
...
Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Chefoo (98, 46)!
Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Nakhon Ratchasima (58, 61)!
Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Udon Thani (61, 59)!
...

Hmm do the PI and DEI Industrial areas need also have some garrison to avoid damage from partisan attack's ?

_____________________________

Kill Board

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 343
RE: hexside control - 6/2/2009 11:23:02 AM   
Kereguelen


Posts: 1829
Joined: 5/13/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

Interesting debate. I do not see it as a 'cheat' - but it does frustrate me when the guy who knows all the little 'loopholes' gets an advantage  - either include these things as regular features in the game, or get rid of them. But dont leave us needing to read every last AAR just in case a new 'feature' is discovered.


Well, YH is a tester. Part of his job is to discover loopholes. When he discovers something, the development team decides if he found a 'feature' or a 'bug'

(in reply to Flying Tiger)
Post #: 344
RE: Tora, Tora, Tora! - 6/2/2009 11:44:09 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: aciddrinker


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger
...
Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Chefoo (98, 46)!
Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Nakhon Ratchasima (58, 61)!
Low garrison leads to damage from partisan attack at Udon Thani (61, 59)!
...

Hmm do the PI and DEI Industrial areas need also have some garrison to avoid damage from partisan attack's ?


Manila has a garrison of 150. Some of the DEI has garrisons as well. India has LOTS of them.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

Interesting debate. I do not see it as a 'cheat' - but it does frustrate me when the guy who knows all the little 'loopholes' gets an advantage - either include these things as regular features in the game, or get rid of them. But dont leave us needing to read every last AAR just in case a new 'feature' is discovered.


Well, YH is a tester. Part of his job is to discover loopholes. When he discovers something, the development team decides if he found a 'feature' or a 'bug'


Which I excel at

If there is a way to break a game, I will find it. I think Don has lost about half his hair just from me trying to explain how I managed to find something that I found so he could duplicate it so someone couldnt come along later and do the same thing.

But -

I consider myself to be a players player, and part of what I am trying to do here is point out things like this so EVERYONE is aware of them, not just a select few. But I dont talk about some things that I know are exploits that I also know arent going to get fixed.

_____________________________


(in reply to aciddrinker)
Post #: 345
RE: hexside control - 6/2/2009 11:47:38 AM   
spence

 

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline
quote:

Hmm do the PI and DEI Industrial areas need also have some garrison to avoid damage from partisan attack's ?



Since the Japanese are bound to capture these areas in fairly short order it would seem that such damage would actually be advantageous to the Allied Player since the Japanese Player would be obliged to repair them to use them.


(in reply to Andy Mac)
Post #: 346
RE: hexside control - 6/3/2009 6:57:36 AM   
bradfordkay

 

Posts: 8683
Joined: 3/24/2002
From: Olympia, WA
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

quote:

Hmm do the PI and DEI Industrial areas need also have some garrison to avoid damage from partisan attack's ?



Since the Japanese are bound to capture these areas in fairly short order it would seem that such damage would actually be advantageous to the Allied Player since the Japanese Player would be obliged to repair them to use them.




I thought that he was talking about a need for the Japanese to garrison those bases against guerrilla attacks.

_____________________________

fair winds,
Brad

(in reply to spence)
Post #: 347
RE: hexside control - 6/3/2009 11:25:17 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline 		I was. In India and China both sides are required to garrison to prevent damage, but not so elsewhere.

_____________________________


(in reply to bradfordkay)
Post #: 348
RE: hexside control - 6/3/2009 12:08:53 PM   
vettim89


Posts: 3615
Joined: 7/14/2007
From: Toledo, Ohio
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Flying Tiger

Interesting debate. I do not see it as a 'cheat' - but it does frustrate me when the guy who knows all the little 'loopholes' gets an advantage  - either include these things as regular features in the game, or get rid of them. But dont leave us needing to read every last AAR just in case a new 'feature' is discovered.


I don't know if this is really as big an issue as it is being made. This was a unique situation where the Japanese captured an unocupied base. This isn't the US Army in 2009 this is IJA in 1941. The Japanese didn't stop to make nice with the locals they moved on. If AFB's don't like it here's an idea, don't leave empty bases for the Japanese to push through without a fight.

_____________________________

"We have met the enemy and they are ours" - Commodore O.H. Perry

(in reply to Flying Tiger)
Post #: 349
RE: hexside control - 6/3/2009 12:12:56 PM   
m10bob


Posts: 8622
Joined: 11/3/2002
From: Dismal Seepage Indiana
Status: offline 		Ref the "running out of fuel with barges" issue: Would it be possible to assign some barges for replenishment duty and just have them tag along?

_____________________________




(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 350
RE: hexside control - 6/4/2009 2:21:51 AM   
medicff

 

Posts: 710
Joined: 9/11/2004
From: WPB, Florida
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Its an unoccupied base, so why shouldnt part of the advancing force be allowed to continue to advance while another part secures the area? I dont see a thing in the world "exploitive" about that.


What I am doing is really no different than putting my non-attacking units into reserve mode with pursuit set to ON. However, pursuit wont work in an attack where there are no defenders, so this "exploit" as you term it isnt doing anything that would or could be done were there actual defenders in the hex. I see no reason that a force shouldnt be allowed to use the bonus "pursuit" movement just because the other guy pulled his troops out. In effect what you are saying is that a players advance should be SLOWER in areas where there are no defenders than if there were. Which doesnt make sense to me.





Just to be sure. What I am reading here is that this ONLY occurs on an unoccupied base. A base with defenders will not allow this movement unless pursuit mode is selected.

Pat

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 351
RE: hexside control - 6/4/2009 10:54:38 AM   
String


Posts: 2661
Joined: 10/7/2003
From: Estonia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: m10bob

Ref the "running out of fuel with barges" issue: Would it be possible to assign some barges for replenishment duty and just have them tag along?


I think the obvious and historical solution here is not to send barges beyond their range and/or set up small fuel depots along their way.

_____________________________

Surface combat TF fanboy

(in reply to m10bob)
Post #: 352
RE: hexside control - 6/4/2009 11:43:36 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

I was. In India and China both sides are required to garrison to prevent damage, but not so elsewhere.



Add Burma to that list.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 353
RE: hexside control - 6/4/2009 11:56:41 AM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: medicff



quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Its an unoccupied base, so why shouldnt part of the advancing force be allowed to continue to advance while another part secures the area? I dont see a thing in the world "exploitive" about that.


What I am doing is really no different than putting my non-attacking units into reserve mode with pursuit set to ON. However, pursuit wont work in an attack where there are no defenders, so this "exploit" as you term it isnt doing anything that would or could be done were there actual defenders in the hex. I see no reason that a force shouldnt be allowed to use the bonus "pursuit" movement just because the other guy pulled his troops out. In effect what you are saying is that a players advance should be SLOWER in areas where there are no defenders than if there were. Which doesnt make sense to me.





Just to be sure. What I am reading here is that this ONLY occurs on an unoccupied base. A base with defenders will not allow this movement unless pursuit mode is selected.

Pat


No, its anytime, but you wont move through an enemy controlled hexside regardless. So if you fail to take the base, the point is kind of moot, no?

_____________________________


(in reply to medicff)
Post #: 354
RE: hexside control - 6/4/2009 2:34:41 PM   
Flying Tiger

 

Posts: 496
Joined: 3/11/2008
From: ummmm... i HATE that question!
Status: offline
quote:

I consider myself to be a players player, and part of what I am trying to do here is point out things like this so EVERYONE is aware of them, not just a select few. But I dont talk about some things that I know are exploits that I also know arent going to get fixed.


Thanks YH. Fair comment. Just remind me never to play against a tester though!!

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 355
RE: hexside control - 6/4/2009 4:08:19 PM   
castor troy


Posts: 14330
Joined: 8/23/2004
From: Austria
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger


quote:

ORIGINAL: medicff



quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Its an unoccupied base, so why shouldnt part of the advancing force be allowed to continue to advance while another part secures the area? I dont see a thing in the world "exploitive" about that.


What I am doing is really no different than putting my non-attacking units into reserve mode with pursuit set to ON. However, pursuit wont work in an attack where there are no defenders, so this "exploit" as you term it isnt doing anything that would or could be done were there actual defenders in the hex. I see no reason that a force shouldnt be allowed to use the bonus "pursuit" movement just because the other guy pulled his troops out. In effect what you are saying is that a players advance should be SLOWER in areas where there are no defenders than if there were. Which doesnt make sense to me.





Just to be sure. What I am reading here is that this ONLY occurs on an unoccupied base. A base with defenders will not allow this movement unless pursuit mode is selected.

Pat


No, its anytime, but you wont move through an enemy controlled hexside regardless. So if you fail to take the base, the point is kind of moot, no?



while I somewhat understood it at some point that it´s possible in an empty hex (while still being very ABSTRACT) I have no idea how you want to justify this "feature" in an occupied hex. You can´t move through them but in an abstracted way you do that as some of your troops are marching North and when the rest of your troops kick the enemy out of the hex you then order the "magic move" and perhaps your troops marching North have then marched 45 miles South. Boy, oh boy...

So at the same day your attacking troops kick out the enemy your marching North troops did in fact march THROUGH the enemy (if we think the enemy holds in the middle of the hex). Sorry, the miles are wrong though as I was thinking about a 60 mile hex. But it´s nothing different in a 40 miles hex. This "magic move" is just bullocks.

_____________________________


(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 356
RE: hexside control - 6/4/2009 8:14:54 PM   
Yamato hugger

 

Posts: 5475
Joined: 10/5/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: castor troy

while I somewhat understood it at some point that it´s possible in an empty hex (while still being very ABSTRACT) I have no idea how you want to justify this "feature" in an occupied hex. You can´t move through them but in an abstracted way you do that as some of your troops are marching North and when the rest of your troops kick the enemy out of the hex you then order the "magic move" and perhaps your troops marching North have then marched 45 miles South. Boy, oh boy...

So at the same day your attacking troops kick out the enemy your marching North troops did in fact march THROUGH the enemy (if we think the enemy holds in the middle of the hex). Sorry, the miles are wrong though as I was thinking about a 60 mile hex. But it´s nothing different in a 40 miles hex. This "magic move" is just bullocks.


Quite easy to justify really. 46 mile hex. How much terrain does a - pick a unit - airbase company? They are going to freeze ANY movement "past" them? Lets say a division. A division on the defense covers an area about 3 miles wide if deployed in an open formation. Artillery support out to maybe 10 miles. Leaves plenty of room for maneuver, not to mention the minor fact that the guy doing the maneuvering still has to have enough force to kick that division out of the hex. So if the moving player has enough force to move the defender then likely the defender has enough to do without worrying about the unit that didnt bother to stop. His arty would be firing FPLs and interdiction fire (if even the maneuvering unit was even in range) would be out of the question. Like I said, in that regard it is no different than pursuit other than instead of chasing the retreating units you go in the direction that you want to go.

Actually whether you like it or not doesnt really matter. It has been reviewed and this is the way its going to stay. It isnt even on the pile of stuff to consider for the first patch.

Edit: and 1 other thing. Its a GAME. It has limitations. There is a lot about AE that people arent going to like. I dare say no one will be 100% happy with it. But then, name any game that can claim that everyone is 100% happy with.

< Message edited by Yamato hugger -- 6/4/2009 8:18:00 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to castor troy)
Post #: 357
RE: hexside control - 6/4/2009 8:33:32 PM   
Kwik E Mart


Posts: 2447
Joined: 7/22/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yamato hugger

Edit: and 1 other thing. Its a GAME. It has limitations. There is a lot about AE that people arent going to like. I dare say no one will be 100% happy with it. But then, name any game that can claim that everyone is 100% happy with.



I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about strip poker....


_____________________________

Kirk Lazarus: I know who I am. I'm the dude playin' the dude, disguised as another dude!
Ron Swanson: Clear alcohols are for rich women on diets.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 358
RE: hexside control - 6/4/2009 8:38:40 PM   
PeteG662


Posts: 1263
Joined: 6/7/2004
Status: offline 		Some prudish women would complain about it!

(in reply to Kwik E Mart)
Post #: 359
RE: hexside control - 6/4/2009 8:42:48 PM   
Dili

 

Posts: 4708
Joined: 9/10/2004
Status: offline 		It is only gamey if the hex is full of big enemy units. The ideal was to have an hex ownership that wasn't ON or OFF but progressive and the mobility of the terrain. The contrary is also gamey, the defender to put a Regiment or a Division in a 40miles hex and claim that it stops every infiltration, IRL it should even be possible bypass the unit and in game to advance to another Hex but it is impossible.
the only exception would be in Alpine terrain. Since if the hex is full of enemy units we will need ours too to combat them then i think the way it is, is the less worse.

(in reply to Yamato hugger)
Post #: 360
Page:   <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> RE: hexside control Page: <<   < prev  10 11 [12] 13 14   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.047