Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: wwengr

As a Licensed Professional Engineer and a business executive with an MBA, I wholeheartedly endorse Bullwinkle58's view of the philosophers approach. Another way to look at it is that WITP AE has a never ending supply of Easter Eggs!

Don't worry, be happy!

quote:

ORIGINAL: ItsAMadhouse

It took me exactly 17 seconds after opening the PDF version of the manual to do a Full Reader Search for "20,000" and find this rule in Section 16.2, Air Units, on page 255.

What was the problem again?

Maybe because a newcomer wouldn't know to search for 20,000 and if they did know they would have no reason to search for 20,000.

ItsAMadhouse

quote:

ORIGINAL: pompack

Peace brothers!

1. I have to admit that I have posted about pages 255-257 four times now in response to questions by newcomers who were overwhelmed by the manual. I also have to admit that I have posted RTFM at least that many times in response to experienced people who were complaining that it was not in the manual

quote:

ORIGINAL: ItsAMadhouse

It took me exactly 17 seconds after opening the PDF version of the manual to do a Full Reader Search for "20,000" and find this rule in Section 16.2, Air Units, on page 255.

What was the problem again?

Maybe because a newcomer wouldn't know to search for 20,000 and if they did know they would have no reason to search for 20,000.

ItsAMadhouse

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

So I guess in your search for "Replacements" you entirely overlooked the section entitled - 16.0 Reinforcements and Replacements that starts on page 254...

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Like for me, to learn how to fight carrier battles - I built a sand box - and ran literally hundreds of test battles. This was how I learned the "defensive split" tactic really works well (too well?) in WITP. But then I was able to teach this to my opponents so they wouldn't keep losing all their carriers!

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

So I guess in your search for "Replacements" you entirely overlooked the section entitled - 16.0 Reinforcements and Replacements that starts on page 254...

Of course you are right, and still the player (aka User of the manual) gave it a sincere try and came up empty. I think a valid take-away from this (reinforced by my own experience over the years) is that a better arrangement would be that a player could find everything about air units in the air units section, including what's required to upgrade them, obtain replacements, etc. This is not any kind of slam at how the manual is arranged now (it's a good manual and an accomplishment by the team), it's just a consequence of the way people who don't know something go about looking for that something.

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

quote:

ORIGINAL: treespider

So I guess in your search for "Replacements" you entirely overlooked the section entitled - 16.0 Reinforcements and Replacements that starts on page 254...

Of course you are right, and still the player (aka User of the manual) gave it a sincere try and came up empty. I think a valid take-away from this (reinforced by my own experience over the years) is that a better arrangement would be that a player could find everything about air units in the air units section, including what's required to upgrade them, obtain replacements, etc. This is not any kind of slam at how the manual is arranged now (it's a good manual and an accomplishment by the team), it's just a consequence of the way people who don't know something go about looking for that something.

And just as soon as the Replacement rules were spread out amongst the various Air, Ground, Naval subsections...someone would invariably complain that they could not find the section in the rule book that discussed Replacements.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moss Orleni

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
Like for me, to learn how to fight carrier battles - I built a sand box - and ran literally hundreds of test battles. This was how I learned the "defensive split" tactic really works well (too well?) in WITP. But then I was able to teach this to my opponents so they wouldn't keep losing all their carriers!

Out of sheer curiosity (and because it sounds a bit like the Crane Kick from Karate Kid ):

what is the "defensive split" tactic?

Cheers,

Moss

quote:

ORIGINAL: lb4269


TAKEN FROM "WAR IN THE PACIFIC" BY DECISION GAMES:

Additionally, any attacking Japanese
wave entering the Air/Surface Tactical
Display that is composed of a majority of
“elite” AP’s is allowed more flexibility in
location of entry (see 7.7.1).

“Elite” markers are placed beneath
regular, like-type Japanese AP’s in order
to distinguish between them on the Air
Displays.

[7.11.1] Elite Unit Deployments
Scenario Rule 68.3.3 lists the deployment
allowances for Japanese elite AP’s.

[7.11.2] Elite AP’s retain their status until
eliminated. Elite AP’s may never be rebuilt
or reinforced as such. Exception: see
7.11 .6. The original deployment is thus
the finite limit on the maximum number
of elite Japanese AP’s.

[7.11.3] If the Japanese player takes air
attrition losses at an airbase containing
both elite and regular AP’s of the same
AP type, he may be liable for loss of the
elite AP’s (see 37.1.7).

[7.11.4] Elite Japanese BMR AP’s may,
without penalty, operate at any altitude as
level bombers.

Player’s Note: This provision may often bestow
“Combined Attack” benefits on Japanese
Naval Strikes involving these BMR
types. This is intentional. Note also that,
beginning in 1942, the US player gains
this same altitude adjustment advantage,
at low altitude only, with B-17 AP’s and
in 1943, with B-25 and B-26 AP’s (see 7.1
“B”).


The above is relatively standard in most war-board game rulebooks.

-Lb

quote:

The options are:
»» Fog of War (section 2.4.1)
»» Advanced Weather Effects (section 2.4.2)
»» Allied Damage Control (section 2.4.3)
»» Player Defined Upgrades (section 2.4.4)
»» Historical First Turn (section 2.4.5)
»» December 7th Surprise (section 2.4.6)
»» Reliable USN Torpedoes (section 2.4.7)
»» Realistic R&D (section 2.4.8)
»» No Unit Withdrawals (section 2.4.9)
»» Reinforcement – Allied or Japanese (section 2.4.10)

quote:

Load/Unload - Transport Task Forces load and unload cargos. (Section 6.3)
Coastwatcher Check and Trigger Reactions - Coastwatchers attempt to sight enemy Task
Forces. Task Forces that have “React to Enemy” movement orders this turn receive their new
destinations. (Section 8.7)
Auto Minesweeping - Automated Minesweeping Task Forces (those set on computer control)
conduct minesweeping operations. (Section 6.6.2)
Naval Movement - Task Forces move towards their destinations. Ships expend endurance
points, resolve meeting combat, check for system damage due to being at sea, and conduct
mine warfare operations (including being attacked by mines). (Section 6.6)
Night Air Operations* - All air movement and combat is resolved. (Section 7.2.1.3)
Surface Combat - Remaining ship vs. ship surface combat is resolved. (Section 6.4.2)
Naval Bombardment - Naval bombardments of bases and ground units are resolved. (Section
6.4.3)
Ground Unit Movement - Ground units move toward their destinations. (Section 8.3)
Repair Ships - Ships undergo repair. (Section 14.2)
Base Repair/Construction - Base repair and construction occur, along with construction of
fortifications at bases. (Section 9.5)
Supply Needs Calculation and Overland Supply Movement - The supply needs of all units
and bases are calculated and automatic overland movement of supplies occurs. (Section
15.1)
Task Force Adjustment - Crippled ships are automatically detached into their own Task
Forces. Certain Task Forces have their destinations set so that they will return to base. (Section
6.2.3.1) This sub-phase occurs only during the Night Resolution Phase.
Day Resolution Phase - The system continues to process all orders, which are resolved over
a day period of 12 hours. This Phase is resolved by the computer. This list gives the player a
general idea of what happens when.
Load/Unload - Transport Task Forces load and unload cargos. (Section 6.3)
Coastwatcher Check and Trigger Reactions - Coastwatchers attempt to sight enemy Task
Forces. Task Forces that have “react to enemy” movement orders this turn receive their new
destinations. (Section 8.7 & 6.2.5.14)
Auto Minesweeping - Automated Minesweeping Task Forces (those set on computer control)
conduct minesweeping operations. (Section 6.6.2).
33
Getting Started
Naval Movement - Task Forces move towards their destinations. Ships expend endurance,
resolve meeting combat, check for system damage, and conduct mine warfare operations
(including being attacked by mines). (Section 6.6)
Day Air Operations** - All air movement and combat is resolved (see Air Ops for additional
detail in section 7.2.1.2)
Surface Combat - ship vs. ship surface combat is resolved. (Section 6.4.2)
Naval Bombardment - Naval bombardments of bases and ground units are resolved. (Section
6.4.3)
Ground Combat - Combat between ground units is resolved. (Section 8.4) This sub-phase
occurs only during the Day Resolution Phase.
Ground Movement - Ground units move. (Section 8.3)
Repair Ships - Ships undergo repair. (Section 14.2)
Base Construction and Repair - Bases are built, repaired and fortified. (Section 9.5)
Supply Needs Calculation and Overland Supply Movement - The Supply needs of all units
and bases are calculated and automatic overland movement of supplies occurs. (Section
15.1)
Supply Operations** - Supply Operations are conducted including supplying ground and air
units and repairing planes. (Section 15.0)
Task Force Adjustment - Crippled ships are automatically detached into their own Task
Forces. Certain Task Forces have their destinations set so that they will return to base. (Section
6.2.3.1)

quote:

VF-2 is Carrier Trained (meaning its pilots know how to operate their planes from a carrier),
is stationed on the Lexington, and is comprised of F2A-3 Buffalo fighters. There are 18
serviceable aircraft in the squadron (i.e., ready for combat operations), and 4 aircraft are being
144
repaired (having been damaged in combat or needing regular maintenance or overhaul) and
none in reserve (extra aircraft to replace those lost or seriously damaged in combat). Losses
are recorded to the right and are broken out by cause. Values to the right of the slash are
cumulative. To the left are for the last day. Causes are Ops / Write offs (WOff), Air to Air (A2A)
/ Flak, and on the Ground. See Section 7.2.1.14 Operational Losses to Aircraft for more on
Write Offs
The average time to repair all aircraft is 3 days. The time to repair can be an indicator of
several factors such as the complexity of the aircraft (see section 15.4.1 and 7.4.2.7.1), current
effectiveness (MOR, FAT, EXP) of your AV support, supply, and the state of Airfield service
damage.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

AE isn't most war-board games, and neither is it's manual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: witpqs

... and plenty more. I agree there could be more, but the point is that there are many cross references and claiming that there are none is unfair to those who wrote the manual.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lb4269

quote:

ORIGINAL: ckammp

AE isn't most war-board games, and neither is it's manual.

I know. Once I bought WitP AE, I literally and figuratively shelved all my strategic level pacific war games. None could do it better than this one.

It's manual could still look into taking a pointer or two from how others do it to make the information more easily cross-referenced for those who learn / access things that way.

-Lb

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

In general, the "defensive split" tactics says that if you are weaker than the enemy - you split up your forces - so that if one group is trapped - you only lose one small group - rather than losing everything.

A fuller description of the paradigm might be:

If your "first shot" (first attack) can probably overwhelm the enemy, then concentrate enough firepower to generate this "first effective strike". If it doubtful whether your "first shot" can overwhelem the enemy, then split up your forces so that if the enemy overwhelms you - he will find it more difficult to destroy your entire force.

So this is the basic idea (as eloquently described in Captain Wayne P. Hughes "Fleet Tactics").

==

In WITP and AE there is a specific implementation - especially for the Allies - which says "Always go to battle with 1 CV per TF". By doing this - especially in WITP - you can avoid the "CV Strike Penalty". This tactic is most effective if all of the CV TFs are in the same hex. So have one TF (the slowest) be the leader and have all the other TFs follow.

I practiced this literally hundreds of times before being comfortable that I could use it in a game. However, since I never get to play the Allies (except when testing), my only benefit from the testing was to enable me to teach my opponents the tactic so they could use it against me. But it did dramatically reduce the probability of a lop-sided Japanese CV battle victory - which meant that the games could then proceed past 1942.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Yes, taking this to the "extreme" (as I've had done to me by one opponent) of splitting 50 PT boats up into 50 one boat TFs in one hex could definitely be described as "gamey" - though I'm not one to use such undefined terms. This has been mitigated at bit in AE relative to WITP because there now can be some "bleed over" across multiple TFs in the hex at least for air strikes - not for surface battles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

Yes, taking this to the "extreme" (as I've had done to me by one opponent) of splitting 50 PT boats up into 50 one boat TFs in one hex could definitely be described as "gamey" - though I'm not one to use such undefined terms. This has been mitigated at bit in AE relative to WITP because there now can be some "bleed over" across multiple TFs in the hex at least for air strikes - not for surface battles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Buck Beach
I have used the tactic many times as it relates to escaping the "see all" Japanese snoopers to get ships out of Hong Kong and the Philippines on the first two play days of the war. My AI opponent was very tolerant and didn't cry fowl even once.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Moss Orleni


In our current PBEM, we've just witnessed a "bleed over" in surface combat as well: 4 small cargo TFs moving through the same hex were intercepted and destroyed one by one, all by the same surface combat TF. A fifth was intercepted as well, but escaped... it's great to see that the intercept routines seem to mitigate "small TF" tactics!
Didn't witness any air combat "bleed over" yet...

Moss