Munda/Vila

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Munda/Vila

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> After Action Reports >> Munda/Vila

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Munda/Vila - 11/13/2002 9:41:35 PM

EricLarsen

Posts: 458
Joined: 7/9/2002
From: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by XPav
[B]I saw this, and in addition, the IJN started landing piles of troops on Munda. I shook my head, bombed the ports and airfields at Munda and Shortlands to hell, and when they ran out of supplies, left them alone. [/B]

XPav,
The AI started to land troops at Munda and Vila in my game, as well as Buin, Buka, and Torokina - a rather historical move by the AI. The AI is programmed for Shortlands to be an expansion base or jump-off base so it puts lots of stuff in there. My hardest fight yet was actually at Kavieng as I invaded there before bombing it back to the stoneage. It was even putting up CAP each turn as I landed and even when I started to attack with my ground troops so I had to spend a few turns reducing the fortifications with ground assaults. Also the AI really poured the 18th Army into New Guinea, as I faced off against 100,000 troops around Lae. I remember one regiment went in from Salamua on the first turn and on the second the AI set up a deliberate attack. Thankfully another regiment or two plus a tank battalion showed up on that second turn and successfully staved off the AI's deliberate attack.
Eric Larsen

(in reply to Von Rom)

Post #: 61

Creating new scenarios - 11/13/2002 9:57:09 PM

EricLarsen

Posts: 458
Joined: 7/9/2002
From: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von Rom
[B]If so, then that opens up all kinds of possibilities: such as playing the Allies until you are in a good position, then switch sides, and see if you can fight back as the Japanese. Maybe even post a few of these "situation scenarios" somewhere. In a way, this would be like making our scenarios.[/B]

Von Rom,
Unlike some of the older computer games that locked in the mode of play at the start, UV does allow for switching modes of play with saved games.

Ironic that you mention "situation scenarios" as actually I've been thinking of a saved-game scenario by taking scenario 19 and extending it to 975 turns. Then I would play through about 450-500 turns, about 6/43 or 7/43, to get a starting point. Rather than let the AI play (and screw up) one side I was going to play both sides head-to-head on weekly turns. I would take the scenario premise and take it to it's logical conclusion - the Allies would have been more bent upon the Europe first strategy and would have evacuated Port Moresby and just held up in Australia and around Noumea. I'd allow the IJN to capture PM and then build up bases and eventually move in troops and planes. I'd try to keep as much of the planes and troops in Truk and Noumea to minimize malaria losses and to train them up without burning up supply. In essence it would be a different sort of ring around Rabaul, a ring of Japanese steel. The Allies would have the benefit up building up it's strength and the quality of it's planes and would then have an awesome invasion machine. The IJN would have all it's carriers and BB's and such to defend their ring around Rabaul. I'd also sail ships around near Truk and Noumea to gain experience. That would also have the benefit of being a fun game from either perspective and the AI would have complete fleets to use rather than piecemeal destruction when it plays the Allies.

It's really sad they put in such a crippled editor. Even though there's 20 scenarios there is very little differentiation in them and no campaigns start in '43. I'm going to finish up my current game since I worked too hard and am too close to my little bombing and bombarding expedition to Truk. If I'd started my whirlwind invasions about two months earlier I'd probably be going to invade Truk.
Eric Larsen

(in reply to Von Rom)

Post #: 62

Re: Creating new scenarios - 11/13/2002 11:08:59 PM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by EricLarsen
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by Von Rom
[B]If so, then that opens up all kinds of possibilities: such as playing the Allies until you are in a good position, then switch sides, and see if you can fight back as the Japanese. Maybe even post a few of these "situation scenarios" somewhere. In a way, this would be like making our scenarios.[/B]

Von Rom,
Unlike some of the older computer games that locked in the mode of play at the start, UV does allow for switching modes of play with saved games.

Ironic that you mention "situation scenarios" as actually I've been thinking of a saved-game scenario by taking scenario 19 and extending it to 975 turns. Then I would play through about 450-500 turns, about 6/43 or 7/43, to get a starting point. Rather than let the AI play (and screw up) one side I was going to play both sides head-to-head on weekly turns. I would take the scenario premise and take it to it's logical conclusion - the Allies would have been more bent upon the Europe first strategy and would have evacuated Port Moresby and just held up in Australia and around Noumea. I'd allow the IJN to capture PM and then build up bases and eventually move in troops and planes. I'd try to keep as much of the planes and troops in Truk and Noumea to minimize malaria losses and to train them up without burning up supply. In essence it would be a different sort of ring around Rabaul, a ring of Japanese steel. The Allies would have the benefit up building up it's strength and the quality of it's planes and would then have an awesome invasion machine. The IJN would have all it's carriers and BB's and such to defend their ring around Rabaul. I'd also sail ships around near Truk and Noumea to gain experience. That would also have the benefit of being a fun game from either perspective and the AI would have complete fleets to use rather than piecemeal destruction when it plays the Allies.

It's really sad they put in such a crippled editor. Even though there's 20 scenarios there is very little differentiation in them and no campaigns start in '43. I'm going to finish up my current game since I worked too hard and am too close to my little bombing and bombarding expedition to Truk. If I'd started my whirlwind invasions about two months earlier I'd probably be going to invade Truk.
Eric Larsen [/B][/QUOTE]

Eric: This is kinda the idea I had for my current scenario in my "Rising Sun" AAR. I want to place the IJN in the best possible situation, then save the game at that point, and later (after I finish playing as the IJN) go back, and then switch sides and play as the Allies, and see how the scenario plays out.

I like playing as the underdog. It's also fun to play defensively, trying to thwart an aggressive attack by the enemy. I like your idea about scenario #19: set up the IJN side in an excellent position, then switch over and play the Allies, and see if they can be defeated.

I agree about the editor. Hopefully, the editor included with WiTP will be backward compatible with UV. Even so, the ability to switch sides, allows for many interesting "situations" that can gamed. In this way, if we are playing well as one side; just switch over and play as the other side.

Cheers!

_____________________________

(in reply to Von Rom)

Post #: 63

Re: Creating new scenarios - 11/14/2002 10:45:18 PM

EricLarsen

Posts: 458
Joined: 7/9/2002
From: Salinas, CA Raider Nation
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von Rom[B]I like playing as the underdog. It's also fun to play defensively, trying to thwart an aggressive attack by the enemy. I like your idea about scenario #19: set up the IJN side in an excellent position, then switch over and play the Allies, and see if they can be defeated.

I agree about the editor. Hopefully, the editor included with WiTP will be backward compatible with UV. Even so, the ability to switch sides, allows for many interesting "situations" that can gamed. In this way, if we are playing well as one side; just switch over and play as the other side.

Cheers! [/B]

Von Rom,
I don't think I'd go so far as to want to play a game and then "switch" sides and inherit a mess. My idea for editing scenario 19 to 975 turns is to put the war into mid 43 as a starting point and then run into 1944. That way as the Allies you get all those nice long-range fighters and lots of bombers instead of all those wimpy short-range fighters and not-so-good bombers. Plus both sides would have rather large navies by then and have something close to parity. By allowing the IJN side to occupy Port Moresby it would emulate them expanding to their predetermined Greater Asia Prosperity Sphere and then sitting tight as they had originally planned. It would allow the Allies plenty of time - 500 turns or so - to capture the Jap bases. I know I had to really blitz through waiting as long as I did. I actually was able to capture Guadalcanal to Kavieng and Buna to Wewak in that 8 month period but it was rather busy, especially near the end.

I'm still continuing my old game and have gotten to 12/1/43. I'm invading Madang with SWPAC and I just loaded up the 3rd Marine Division to invade Gasmata. I still wouldn't trade Gasmata, a mere level 4 airfield for 6 "Essex" class carriers. I don't care how many planes you stuck in there 6 big carriers well led will crush the base. While carriers have to worry about subs, bases have to be supplied to fly missions. Carriers may need fuel, but docking them at a nearby port means you could keep them there indefinitely without incurring any systems damage and if a level 3 port of better they're sub-proof as well. I like big level 8 and 9 airfields to fly bombers from, especially the heavies.

I'm still trying to get enough supply up to Rabaul so I can put my 400 heavy bombers there to bomb Truk near the end of the game after my carriers knock down any remaining CAP.

The score right now is about 26,600 for me to about 5,000 for the AI, and falling as I capture bases. I'm hoping to catch some ships in port at Truk and really up my scoer, but I also know I'm putting my carriers and other surface ships at risk, but what the heck. Just wish I had another month of game time so I could invade Truk.
Eric

(in reply to Von Rom)

Post #: 64

Re: Re: Creating new scenarios - 11/15/2002 11:19:59 PM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by EricLarsen
[B]Von Rom,
My idea for editing scenario 19 to 975 turns is to put the war into mid 43 as a starting point and then run into 1944. That way as the Allies you get all those nice long-range fighters and lots of bombers instead of all those wimpy short-range fighters and not-so-good bombers. Plus both sides would have rather large navies by then and have something close to parity. By allowing the IJN side to occupy Port Moresby it would emulate them expanding to their predetermined Greater Asia Prosperity Sphere and then sitting tight as they had originally planned. It would allow the Allies plenty of time - 500 turns or so - to capture the Jap bases. I know I had to really blitz through waiting as long as I did. I actually was able to capture Guadalcanal to Kavieng and Buna to Wewak in that 8 month period but it was rather busy, especially near the end.

I still wouldn't trade Gasmata, a mere level 4 airfield for 6 "Essex" class carriers. I don't care how many planes you stuck in there 6 big carriers well led will crush the base. While carriers have to worry about subs, bases have to be supplied to fly missions. Carriers may need fuel, but docking them at a nearby port means you could keep them there indefinitely without incurring any systems damage and if a level 3 port of better they're sub-proof as well. I like big level 8 and 9 airfields to fly bombers from, especially the heavies.
Eric [/B][/QUOTE]

Eric: Hi :)

One thing I like about UV, it is an open-ended strategy game. It can be played using a wide variety of playing styles.

My style is to be aggressive: attack early and keep the opposition off balance. When I played as the Allies, I had lots of those "whimpy" medium bombers, but I couldn't reach the important Japanese bases with them. So I captured Gasmata in December, 1942. Then Hoskins. Both bases allowed me to station over 500 medium bombers and fighters on them by early March, 1943. The Japanese air, naval and land forces at their BIG bases at Kavieng, Rabaul and Shortland had been crushed by April 14, 1943 (long before I received more carriers or long-range bombers).

The months leading up to actually capturing Gasmata was a tough up-hill grind, of non-stop fighting by air, sea and land. The battle to capture, build-up, and sustain Gasmata always hung in the balance.

After this period, at least for me, it was no longer a contest: I would continue to get stronger, while the Japanese would get weaker. In the early game, Gasmata became the hinge that opened the door to Japan's defeat.

I would also like to have 6 carriers, but I worked with what I had (and it made it a very exciting game by not quite having everything I needed), and still brought the Japanese to their knees.

Now I'm playing as the IJN, and I'm trying to do the same thing to the Allies. I hope it works.

Cheers :D

_____________________________

(in reply to Von Rom)

Post #: 65

- 11/16/2002 4:37:28 PM

Maddog

Posts: 21
Joined: 3/18/2002
From: Illesheim, Germany
Status: offline

Von Rom, thanks for allowing Warfare HQ to post your Days of Decision AAR in our AAR section. I'm sure a lot of UV players will enjoy reading it.

_____________________________

Warfare HQ General Editor
http://www.warfarehq.com

(in reply to Von Rom)

Post #: 66

- 11/17/2002 3:55:08 PM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Maddog
[B]Von Rom, thanks for allowing Warfare HQ to post your Days of Decision AAR in our AAR section. I'm sure a lot of UV players will enjoy reading it. [/B][/QUOTE]

Maddog: Glad you enjoyed reading it as much as I did writing it :D

Cheers!

_____________________________

(in reply to Von Rom)

Post #: 67

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> After Action Reports >> Munda/Vila

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3]