Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

Can you then please answer the following questions?

I already stated I have no issues with stuff coming/going to the UK off map.

Which of these are incorrect (around the world = off map movement, one off map base to another on the other side of the map)?

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement no refueling required).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world (strategic movement doesn't require ships for air groups).
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

6. Please tell me why this off-map movement can't be exploited by the allied player? Like the Allied player attacking from the Atlantic (sail the pacific fleet risk free no refuel required, around the world).

7. The off map movement gives the allied player free movement by passing ALL Japanese bases IN THE PACIFIC, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so how is this not a big advantage to the allied player?

8. I don't understand reducing allied shipping in the pacific only to give them a free ride (no ships required for troop/air groups, no refueling) when shipping them in the Atlantic?

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
7. The off map movement gives the allied player free movement by passing ALL Japanese bases IN THE PACIFIC, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so how is this not a big advantage to the allied player?

quote:

The off map areas are in the game - because I wanted them in the game.

Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

quote:

I just can't wrap my head around his fixation on this issue.

Beezle - Rapidly running out of altitude, airspeed and ideas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: TalonCG2



This guy can't be for real. He has to just be a forum troll looking to make trouble and aggravate people.

Every question (in all of their multiple forms asking the same thing over and over) he has asked has been answered and explained left right and sideways.

If I wind up playing as the Japanese in AE, I hope the allied player does choose to move a large portion of his forces "off map" the long way around. Each unit he decides to send that way will be out of my hair for 60 days or more! How is that an advantage to the allied player? The unit will be safer, but it will be gone, untouchable by the allied player for a much longer period of time. It's a trade off.

I just can't wrap my head around his fixation on this issue. It's like a car wreck. You don't want to see it, but you can't look away.

There are only two kinds of people that understand Marines: Marines and the enemy. Everyone else has a second-hand opinion.

Gen. William Thornson, U.S. Army

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc
pad has been a part of this forum for a long time and has been an active contributor. I hesitate to label him a troll at this time. Even if the incessant posting of the same thing over and over again is a little over the top.

Semper Fi,
Lee

quote:

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

pad has been a part of this forum for a long time and has been an active contributor. I hesitate to label him a troll at this time. Even if the incessant posting of the same thing over and over again is a little over the top.

Semper Fi,
Lee

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheTomDude

Let's see if he can make it to 10 pages with the same questions over and over and over again.
Put question -> ignore answers -> copy /paste questions -> ignore answers -> copy /paste questions ->ignore answers -> copy /paste questions ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Right, I've asked the rest of the AE team to get back to work. I'd be happy to answer any remaining questions about the off map areas.
.....
If there are further questions - please ask away!

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152

quote:

ORIGINAL: wdolson

quote:

ORIGINAL: pad152
Andrew, stated this can be fixed by the player with the editor (removing/disable some of this map movement), I hope that's true. I'm just surprised that this is even in AE, it seems like such an advantage to the allied player. I think both players should be forced to move their forces on the same map.

It really isn't such a huge advantage. The offmap trip the long way around to Australia is very long. In the first year or so the Allies are going to find merchant ships tight. Especially long haul merchant ships. When we were testing moving supplies from Cape Town to India, Allied players found that while doable, it sucked up most of their longest range merchant ships. The haul to Australia from Cape Town is even further than India with very little in the way of bases to stop and get a refill.

Unless the Japanese have occupied the entire South Pacific, it is always much more economical for the Allies to ship supplies to Australia hooking south of Japanese possessions in the Central and South Pacific.

I have played AE as the Allies and I didn't see your concerns as a serious consideration. In the real world the Allies could ship supplies and troops via the southern route around Africa. They did it very little for the same reasons the Allies don't do it much in AE. It's a very long trip and very taxing on your limited resources.

The Allies don't have the bounty of merchies and supplies they had in WitP. At least not in 1942. Tying up all your valuable long range merchant ships on world cruises just to avoid the occasional Japanese sub is a foolish choice and an Allied player who does it will likely end up in worse shape down the line because a lot less supply is getting to Australia than would make it with the on map route.

If it takes twice the time and twice the fuel to go the long way (I haven't counted hexes, but that's a rough guess), you will be delivering half the cargo to Australia than using the on map route. If you want to move something from the eastern Pacific (near or in the US) to the Indian Ocean, it might be reasonable to do, but it's going to be costly in time and effort.

You have the disadvantage of not having played the game. It really isn't as bad as you think.

Bill

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement don't require refueling).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world.
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

How can this not, be a big advantage to the allies?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bradfordkay
These are all done by ships that did not see action in the Pacific theatre - they were just used to get the stuff to the Middle East or South Africa. Now if you want to track all that stuff, then you need to give the allies ALL the shipping that was used in the Atlantic as well. Is this what you want?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vettim89

. . . but it obvious that Pad 152 has gotten his copy and evaluated the game very closely.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

And since most of you probably have not been around long enough to remember that game - I'll briefly describe it. This game - called WITP (War in the Pacific) came out in 1978 (IIRC). It was 60 mile hexes, divisional scale (with regiments), 10 plane "air points" individual ships down to cruiser, pairs for DD, etc. But this was a huge game - and had full production system on both sides - etc. Obviously one of the inspirations for the 2by3/Matrix edition over 20 years later.

quote:

ORIGINAL: erstad

How can you not love a game that fills an entire ping-pong table - overlaid with several 4x8 sheets of plywood because a ping-pong table just wasn't big enough! (not counting the various auxiliary tables to keep all the charts/displays on)