Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

 
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] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 6/23/2003 10:10:20 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Posted by Nik
[QUOTE]None.[/QUOTE]
I was asking about operational losses not the number of coherent thoughts you have in a year.

However, I'll admit you're getting better and better at this concise post stuff.

No op losses, eh.

Now that's something worth investigating.

Cheers

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 31
- 6/23/2003 10:21:24 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		air attack on Port Moresby , at 53,91

Japanese aircraft
A6M2 Zero x 1

Allied aircraft
P-39D Airacobra x 1

Japanese aircraft losses
Zip!

Allied aircraft losses
P-39D Airacobra x 1 destroyed

WO Drongo of 5th RAAF squadron ground loops and is credited with wreck number 5

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 32
- 6/23/2003 10:40:48 PM   
Yamamoto

 

Posts: 743
Joined: 11/21/2001
From: Miami, Fl. U.S.A.
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by pasternakski
[B]That's not what Snig is saying. He is merely pointing out that time was not wasted modeling US engine production because there was no shortage of aircraft engines. [/B][/QUOTE]

OK, I just thought that if players had unlimited controls over production they might run into a shortage that didn't exist in history.

[QUOTE][B]
Nobody is thereby discriminating against the Japanese as a people, a nation, or the economic force that made American sedans obsolete.. [/B][/QUOTE]

I know.

[QUOTE][B]
And I thought you were above playing the nonsensical "all the Allies have to do is build forty bazillion B-17s in order to win the game" game.[/B][/QUOTE]

I think I am but since some people raised the idea of an all B-17 air force I just thought a per engine production design would help to curtail such unrealism. Since it seems there are other limits on such an unrealistic strategy I am fine with dropping engine limits for the US. Also, I've nver posted anything about B-17s being too tough. I shoot them donw in my games all the time.

[QUOTE][B]
Drongo created this thread as a pipeline of information from the testers to us.[/B][/QUOTE]

I appreciate that. It is always nice to be kept informed. It is natural though to expect people to "lobby" or "complain" about things it they think they have a chance of influencing them. This is a game that we will most likely be playing for 10+ years so even a small matter can be a point of contention.

I like the way most of the production and economic systems are shaping up based on what I've heard.

I'd still like, at least an optional setting, to be able to lay down new ships but I know many people want to stay 100% historical.

Yamamoto

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 33
- 6/23/2003 11:46:05 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Posted by Yamamoto
[QUOTE]I'd still like, at least an optional setting, to be able to lay down new ships but I know many people want to stay 100% historical.[/QUOTE]

I think that one would probably be on everyone's (secret) wish list.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 34
- 6/24/2003 12:12:47 AM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Posted Borasaurus
[QUOTE]WO Drongo of 5th RAAF squqadron ground loops and is credited with wreck number 5[/QUOTE]

An accident investigation team later reported that WO Drongo had fallen asleep while returning from an unsuccessful intercept of a Japanese fighter sweep but were unable to explain why a perfectly healthy and well rested pilot, flying an undamaged and well maintained aircraft, would do this.

Lt Nikademus, who was on flight operations duty at the time, stated :

"It was amazing. There I was in the control tower watching him come in to land when I noticed his approach technique could do with improving. I'd just got on the radio and started explaining the principles of a perfect landing when WHAM, he just crashed."

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 35
- 6/24/2003 12:20:57 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Curious about the no USA engine thing. While engines may have been in great supply, superchargers were as rare as you can get, with the majority of them going towards high altitude bombers simply to get above the fighters and take less losses in Europe.

While I have no concerns about the low altitude planes that didn't require a supercharger, it would be extremely poor to see this not represented in performance aircraft. This is why so many aircraft had great low level performance that simply died above 10,000 feet.

Japan was in worse shape due to their poor facilities, but they BOTH suffered from the lack of rare metals to produce these items. It would seem wrong to not represent this major factor in aircraft production, almost more important a factor then production of the engines themselves.

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 36
- 6/24/2003 2:41:46 AM   
pasternakski


Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mr.Frag
[B]Curious about the no USA engine thing. While engines may have been in great supply, superchargers were as rare as you can get, with the majority of them going towards high altitude bombers simply to get above the fighters and take less losses in Europe.

While I have no concerns about the low altitude planes that didn't require a supercharger, it would be extremely poor to see this not represented in performance aircraft. This is why so many aircraft had great low level performance that simply died above 10,000 feet.

Japan was in worse shape due to their poor facilities, but they BOTH suffered from the lack of rare metals to produce these items. It would seem wrong to not represent this major factor in aircraft production, almost more important a factor then production of the engines themselves. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hm. Then maybe Yamamoto's right and Allied engine production (at least supercharger production) ought to be modelled. As I said before, I'm speculating from ignorance here. I defer to those who have more knowledge of the historical facts and just hope that it gets done right.

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 37
- 6/24/2003 2:45:06 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo
[B]Posted Borasaurus


An accident investigation team later reported that WO Drongo had fallen asleep while returning from an unsuccessful intercept of a Japanese fighter sweep but were unable to explain why a perfectly healthy and well rested pilot, flying an undamaged and well maintained aircraft, would do this.

[/quote]

Lt Nikademus, who was on flight operations duty at the time, stated :

"Well no sir, initially i wasn't alarmed at the drunken weave WO Drongo was sketching across the landing pattern, after all he'd only gotten back to the barracks at around 4pm. I remember that specifically because i was woken up at that time by the sound of a very loud crash coming from the outside my window followed by some loudmouth slurring something at the pitch of his lungs. Sounded like "*()*! Yankssh...*)(*()@ Yanksh.....*)(*)&*(@# YANKSHHHH"

A few more of what sounded suspiciously like a foot locker slamming against walls followed this, then a more muffled 'thump' , then peace and quiet. I looked at my clock and the time showed 0400 hours.

Sure enough, as the air raid siren sounded this morning, i saw WO Drongo half running, half staggering to his waiting P-39, cursing up a blue streak too i might add. The weaving pattern he was making was very simlar to that displayed on landing. He almost missed intersecting with the P-39 during one particularily heavy weave to port, but the tail assembly broke his fall. He then climbed into the cockpit after only 4 tries and proceeded to taxi to the runway.....well taxi to the runway after a little detour through officer's country first but noone was hurt.

Yes....yes sir he did manage to take off though i'd really would have preffered if he'd had saved his bullets for the Japanese instead of those palm trees at the end of the runway.

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 38
- 6/24/2003 6:18:46 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Posted by Mr. Frag
[QUOTE]Curious about the no USA engine thing. While engines may have been in great supply, superchargers were as rare as you can get, with the majority of them going towards high altitude bombers simply to get above the fighters and take less losses in Europe.[/QUOTE]
As I understand it, there were limitations on availability but that was more about how quickly existing production capacity could be increased rather than the hitting of any production upper limit or some critical level of a strategic material stocks being exceeded.

Even with those limitations, there were a few qualifiers.
1) Availability limitations applied only to turbochargers and not (geared) superchargers (like in the P-51). IIRC, the P-38 and P-47 were the only US fighters equipped with turbochargers. All heavy bombers used them but I think all the mediums used superchargers.

2) Turbochargers were being produced in fairly small quantities in the USA in the late 30's before two events occured. Firstly, an advanced series of turbochargers were developed (like the General Electric 'B' series). Once the performance potential of aircraft equipped with these was realised, almost all the aircraft manufacturers wanted their new designs equipped with them. At the same time, the situation in Europe deteriorated, prompting the USA to embark on a rapid modernisation and expansion of the USAAC.

Together, these two factors created a potential demand for turbochargers that would not be immeadiately met from the existing suppliers without expansion of their capacity. The USAAC imposed a priority on the distribution which was (initially) heavily weighted towards their new wonder weapon, the turbocharged version of the B-17. Although the production of turbochargers always kept the manufacturers at their capacity limits, supply was sufficient to equip and maintain over 30,000 four engined bombers and over 20,000 of the USAAF's 2nd generation fighters from 1942 onwards. Not what I'd consider rare.

3) Unlike geared superchargers, turbochargers did require the use of the strategic materials like tungsten. However, the numbers of turbo superchargers produced in the USA didn't appear to be restricted by availability of strategic materials (unlike the situation in Germany and Japan). The USA did have have to be conservative with the use of the materials but the availability of the turbocharger was dictated more by production capacity then supply of strategic materials. General Electric (who produced almost all the turbochargers used in US aircraft) was running at full capacity for the duration of the war even when that capacity had been expanded several times. They probably would've looked forward to running out of tungsten. From what I've read, the historical production levels of 4 engined bombers would have to have been increased considerably before there was any chance of approaching the critical level for strategic materials.

Wartime aviation industry production problems are not tops on my fun reading list. If you or anyone else have any figures that can show what the theoretical maximums for monthly production (and causes) were, this is the forum to put it.

Or better still, get hold of some figures that show that the Japanese were actually up to their armpits in aero engines so that their engine requirement for a/c production can get dropped.

Then the whole issue will just go away and everyone will be at peace.

Make it up if you have to. :p

Cheers

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 39
- 6/25/2003 3:38:47 AM   
byron13


Posts: 1589
Joined: 7/27/2001
Status: offline 		Since production seems to be running somewhat similar to BTR with a chain of supply/capacity events that have to occur before a plane rolls out the factory, is there any display that shows where a bottleneck is? In other words, if my Mitsubishis aren't rolling out at the rate I think they are, is there an easy way for me to determine that the problem is a shortage of raw materials, heavy industry, oil, capacity, or whatever?

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 40
Production - 6/25/2003 3:44:23 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by byron13
[B]Since production seems to be running somewhat similar to BTR with a chain of supply/capacity events that have to occur before a plane rolls out the factory, is there any display that shows where a bottleneck is? In other words, if my Mitsubishis aren't rolling out at the rate I think they are, is there an easy way for me to determine that the problem is a shortage of raw materials, heavy industry, oil, capacity, or whatever? [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi, Yes at present (alpha) you can see where the problem is.

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 41
- 6/25/2003 5:05:26 AM   
Mr.Frag


Posts: 13410
Joined: 12/18/2002
From: Purgatory
Status: offline 		Allison V-1710 (P-39/P-40/P-38/P-51)

Packard V-1650 (P-51D/P-40F)

Pratt and Whitney R-1830-76/86 (F4F-3)

Pratt and Whitney R-1830-36 (F4F-4/B-24)

Pratt and Whitney R-2800 (P-47/F4U)

Wright R-1820 (B-17/F6F)

Wright R-2600 (B-25)

Wright R-3350 (B-29)


The Allison based planes were in great supply as there were no bomber pukes swiping all their engines, hence production numbers were sky high *and* available. Every Wright produced was destined for a bomber until there was no place left to put them, then they gave some to the Navy for the F6F.

The P-51 is a classic to look at as originally with the Allison, it was just another poor performing plane. Once you got past that and stole the Spit's engine ;) it became one of the best planes there was...

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 42
- 6/25/2003 5:27:09 AM   
madflava13


Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline 		It was the British who came up with the idea of putting Rolls-Royce Merlins in the P-51...

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 43
- 6/25/2003 7:47:14 AM   
Caltone


Posts: 651
Joined: 9/5/2001
From: Raleigh, NC USA
Status: offline 		The 99 exp pilots losing badly to the 10 exp ones has to be tweaked a little.

These aren't remote controlled drones in the air. Someone has to maneuver the plane into the kill zone, pull the trigger, and score a hit. Somehow I just can't get my hands around a crack fighter pilot getting shot up by a flight school grad.

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 44
- 6/25/2003 12:23:20 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Posted by Carltone
[QUOTE]The 99 exp pilots losing badly to the 10 exp ones has to be tweaked a little.

These aren't remote controlled drones in the air. Someone has to maneuver the plane into the kill zone, pull the trigger, and score a hit. Somehow I just can't get my hands around a crack fighter pilot getting shot up by a flight school grad.[/QUOTE]
The final 'tweaking' sessions for routines haven't started yet. The results you are seeing are from the game as it is in the current alpha stage.

Despite that, we thought some player feedback (like your comments) at this stage on current results might be good to know for when Matrix/2x3 does any later 'tweaking'.

TO ALL
Just as a clarificarion on Alpha AARs,
The test AARs have been put in the public forum for people to have a look and make comments if desired. They are not there to cause a panic. What you are seeing is the alpha results, not the beta and everything is subject to change. However, feedback is fine at this stage, especially if you can briefly explain why you agree/disagree (but if you want to argue the toss with other posters, take it outside).

One final point, the testers all have opinions on the AARs as well but we only post ours in the development forum as feedback to Matrix/2x3. If we don't critique the results ourselves here, it is because we don't want to have any influence on your feedback or cause any conflict.

Cheers

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 45
A LARGE PROBLEM - 6/25/2003 9:09:39 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		I'm enjoying the "play by play" in the other Testers Reports
Thread..., but it brings to light one big problem that ought to be
addressed. Any "simulation game" is at heart a set of choices
made by the designer as to what the "most important aspects"
effecting the campaign being simulated. It's impossible to include
every historical aspect that could possibly come into play and
still be able to program (or play) the game. This is fine and we
all accept it as the price you pay to have a game to play at all.

But no matter how hard a designer tries, his reality is going
to be somewhat different than the actual reality faced by the
"original players". The choices made historically were made for
reasons that may or may not be represented in a game. For the
most part, if the designer gives players something that "feels
right", it's not a big problem. Both sides will play under the same
conditions, and if it's not quite perfect, it's still fair.., Right?

Well, in the case of WITP, no.., it's not. Not if the Japanese
player has the ability to plan his "opening moves" based on
"Game Reality"---but the Allied player's opening set up is based
on "historical reality". The game that's being "replayed" for us
in the other thread is a perfect example. Based on the rules of
play as given, Drongo has chosen to make an "a-historical"
landing in southern Malaya. Great! That's the kind of "what if"
that keeps us all coming back to a game. But historically, there
may have been excellent reasons why Yamashita chose not to
do this---but the factors governing his decision either aren't
included in the game design, or have been given different
"weight" by the designer.

The problem arises in the Allied deployment being attacked.
It WAS NOT designed based on the rules of play in the game---
it was designed to meet the historical rules of reality at the time.
To be a fair test as a game, the Allies should be able to set up
their forces "in theatre" as they wish under the rules and
conditions of the game. Because "game reality" can never be
totally "historical reality", both sides should be allowed to make
adjustments. The Allies to change the way their forces are
deployed within specific areas (like Malaysia) to meet the realities
of the game---and the Japanese to change the way they
approach dealing with the problems the allied defense presents.
Then you have a fair contest. Otherwise (especially in a game
like this where one side starts with almost ALL the initiative) it's
unbalanced in favor of the Japanese.

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 46
- 6/26/2003 1:16:22 AM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Mike,

In the current version of the alpha, the allies are free to move all their units on the first turn. Matrix/2x3 have not indicated what (if any)the allied first turn move restrictions will be. Maybe you should just wait until the game is further developed and raise your concerns once you see whats on offer.

As a point to note, the invasion site I chose was a completely viable landing site that was considered suitable by the Japanese when they were planning and was used as such to land a division in January of '42.

As I indicated in my thread, they chose to go with the Northern landings to gain maximum benefit of the proximity of their airbases and ports in the Gulf of Siam. That meant good support for their landing but also required fighting the length of Malaya. One other consideration was to maximise secrecy (even though the British knew they were coming) but since I don't know what form it will take in the game, I didn't use it in my planning.

I chose instead a strategy that would possibly gain the major advantage of quickly cutting off Singapore but incurred the risk of being vulnerable to Allied naval and air attacks. That is exactly what they would have faced historically. They also had excellent information on Malaya for their planning in the lead up to the invasion.

The landing point was chosen entirely because it was best suited to the strategy and not because I could see all the Allied deployments. Just remember, the defenders of the chosen landing site are one of the two best units in Malaya (the other is an easy 2 days march away). Under the current alpha, I could certainly have started marching my units on day one but I decided an allied player would make sure the Japanese are commited first. You don't have to play it that way.

If I'd done the historical invasion in the North, I'd be facing an easier task than what I am in my thread. This is due to the lower quality of the opposition and the fact that I would only need to focus on Northern Malaya with my are ops, allowing both airbase attacks AND ground support. When I used the historical landing sites in a prior game of WITP, I captured the historical port from the defenders on turn 2 of the game.

All in all, Malaya is probably the least appropriate of the Japanese operations to base your objections on concerning a-historical play.

Cheers

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 47
Opening Moves - 6/26/2003 2:26:10 AM   
Capt. Harlock


Posts: 5358
Joined: 9/15/2001
From: Los Angeles
Status: offline 		It seems to me that the problem boils down to one of available Intelligence reports. In any kind of populated area, it's hard to conceal large quantities of troops. Someone's land is going to get tramped on, and if there's an agent at the local bar, he's bound to pick up an earful. In places like Malaya where the British were occupiers, it shouldn't be hard to find out the Allied dispositions. In places like Oahu or Australia where the vast majority of the population is loyal, it would be much more difficult.

_____________________________

Civil war? What does that mean? Is there any foreign war? Isn't every war fought between men, between brothers?

--Victor Hugo

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 48
TO DRONGO - 6/26/2003 7:35:56 AM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		Please re-read my note. I was not objecting to your choice
of landing areas. Only to the fact that the Allies were FORCED
to start from their HISTORICAL deployment, while the Japanese
were free to alter all their starting efforts to match GAME rules
conditions. It seems that the game will include something like
"planning points" for offensive actions, with units having to spend
time "preparing" for specific activities to be fully capable. When
you changed the attacks of the 25th Army did you LOSE all the
pre-war "planning points" and come ashore totally un-prepared?
I didn't think so from your descriptions.

It's not weather or not the Allies can move on turn one---it's
where they start moving from. As long as they are forced to
begin the game from "fixed" historical locations it's a large and
unfair advantage for the Japanese. Let them deploy to meet
GAME conditions---Then let the Japanese plan their attacks and
begin the Campaign. That's fair..., and it prevents any "perfect"
plan because no game will start exactly alike. That's what I
would like to see---a fair start for both sides.

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 49
Re: TO DRONGO - 6/26/2003 7:48:24 AM   
mogami


Posts: 12789
Joined: 8/23/2000
From: You can't get here from there
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl
[B]Please re-read my note. I was not objecting to your choice
of landing areas. Only to the fact that the Allies were FORCED
to start from their HISTORICAL deployment, while the Japanese
were free to alter all their starting efforts to match GAME rules
conditions. It seems that the game will include something like
"planning points" for offensive actions, with units having to spend
time "preparing" for specific activities to be fully capable. When
you changed the attacks of the 25th Army did you LOSE all the
pre-war "planning points" and come ashore totally un-prepared?
I didn't think so from your descriptions.

It's not weather or not the Allies can move on turn one---it's
where they start moving from. As long as they are forced to
begin the game from "fixed" historical locations it's a large and
unfair advantage for the Japanese. Let them deploy to meet
GAME conditions---Then let the Japanese plan their attacks and
begin the Campaign. That's fair..., and it prevents any "perfect"
plan because no game will start exactly alike. That's what I
would like to see---a fair start for both sides. [/B][/QUOTE]

Hi, The Japanese land combat units begin where they were on Dec 7th. There are quite a few large units that can't be used on turn 1 because of a lack of transport. (and plently of transport at locations with nothing to move) And the landings take place with 0 prep point. (They suffer higher loss/breakdown)

_____________________________






I'm not retreating, I'm attacking in a different direction!

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 50
- 6/26/2003 10:50:50 AM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Posted by Mike Scholl
[QUOTEPlease re-read my note. I was not objecting to your choice
of landing areas. [/QUOTE]

Mike,
Re-read your note,
you were objecting to me having the ability to choose a different landing area to the historical on the basis of -
[QUOTE]But historically, there may have been excellent reasons why Yamashita chose not to do this---but the factors governing his decision either aren't included in the game design, or have been given different "weight" by the designer.[/QUOTE]
- and I was pointing out that these factors are present in the game when planning the invasion of Malaya. The landing site was a real landing site, the planned land movement uses historical roads and the vulnerability of the landing site due to its proximity to Singapore based air/naval forces matches what they would have faced.

So your assumption that these factors aren't included or are weighted differently is not appropriate for the Malayan plan that I am describing in the other thread. The only factor I can think of that is not present is how much of a warning would the British gain by the extra time taken by the Japanese to sail an invasion fleet 200 miles further south. Until I know how the developers will hande things like that, I chose to assume it would not be critical to the game I was playing.

Apart from that, I have not disagreed with you over your concerns about opening moves may favouring one side. It always has to be looked at carefully in any game like this but we are not yet at the point where we know exactly what WITP will go with.

[QUOTE]When you changed the attacks of the 25th Army did you LOSE all the pre-war "planning points" and come ashore totally un-prepared?I didn't think so from your descriptions.[/QUOTE]

As Mogami said, in the current alpha you land with 0 prep points. Exactly how it will all work in the final version is not yet clear. It could mean no invasion units can use prep points or only those historical start forces that keep their historical objectives or all historical start forces regardless. In other words, we don't yet know.

The landing in my test game was always going to be difficult enough anyway since most of the Japanese units in the convoy cant even start unloading until day 2. The situation on the actual beach was described as chaotic several times in my summary. It was described that way for a very good reason. High disruption, high fatigue, 20% of troops are disabled, most of the support points are still on the ships and only now have sufficient supplies unloaded for the units to bring them close to minimum requirements (currently at about 80%). If that doesn't sound unprepared after 2 days on a beach, not sure what will.

The next time you see chaotic mentioned in my summary, do not assume that I'm using it because I have a flair for the dramatic. It is exactly what the game situation on the beach is like.

[QUOTE]It's not weather or not the Allies can move on turn one---it's where they start moving from. As long as they are forced to
begin the game from "fixed" historical locations it's a large and
unfair advantage for the Japanese. Let them deploy to meet
GAME conditions---Then let the Japanese plan their attacks and
begin the Campaign. That's fair..., and it prevents any "perfect"
plan because no game will start exactly alike. That's what I
would like to see---a fair start for both sides.[/QUOTE]

Do you want the game development to ever end?

There is no feature in the current game to use as a basis for a "deployment" routine, so it would have to be built from scratch.

Then you have to apply a whole set of deployment restrictions to stop the historically ridiculous situations.

Then, etc, etc.

The only alternative would be to use the editor (and you will be able to do that anyway).

You're going a bit overboard when you haven't seen the game. You seem to have a habit of assuming something is broken, no matter what we post.

I've given an example of a game where I chose to land at a different site than historical. Somehow, the game is suddenly riddled with all these opportunities for the Japanese to exploit the weaknesses in the allied deployment.

Can you specify the particular moves that will allow the Japanese to get this advantage? And if they were there now, would they still be there in the final version of WITP?

This is an alpha and it will continue to change. When Matrix/2x3 inform us of what the final first day rules will be and what impact they will have, we will certainly pass them on in as much detail as allowed.

Till then, think positive thoughts.

Cheers

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 51
ALRIGHT.... - 6/26/2003 8:53:35 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		.....I'll take your advice and think positive thoughts. But I am
still worried about one detail. From what Mogami said, you are
attacking with zero preparation points by choosing a different
landing area. Yet in your own reports, the total men lost by the
Japanese in making an unprepared opposed landing against
an entrenched enemy were 165 in two days. These are troops
at their most vulnerable time of probably the whole campaign.
They seem to have gotten off pretty lightly... Or are "prep points"
over-rated?

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 52
- 6/26/2003 11:16:00 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Posted by Mike Scholl
[QUOTE]Yet in your own reports, the total men lost by the
Japanese in making an unprepared opposed landing against
an entrenched enemy were 165 in two days. These are troops
at their most vulnerable time of probably the whole campaign.
They seem to have gotten off pretty lightly... Or are "prep points"
over-rated?[/QUOTE]

Well spotted.

Yes, there is something a bit strange about the "reported" ground losses in the AAR and its not related to prep points. We haven't had the time to narrow it down yet (we will though) but the losses are a lot lighter that what you would expect.

Unit before/after strength checks have been done and would seem to indicate that the units are probably copping the real (heavier) losses but its not being reported that way.

This is classic alpha stuff that you just work around until the developers fix it (they have their own order to do things).

In the meantime, just multiply the casualties by 5 (or 10 if your sadistic) and it will be close to what the units are losing.

Cheers

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 53
- 6/27/2003 1:52:11 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		Drongo

I believe the main reason the Japanese chose to land in the north was that it provided easy access to the west coast of Malaya were there was a developed road and rail infrastructure and the terain was much more favorable for an advance. Where as the Japanese did land at Mersing late in the campaign, I believe it was just one reinforced regiment of the 18th division not an entire dvision. This was because supplying a whole army or even one division as it advanced inland would be next to impossible through the wilderness of the southern east coast.l

That being said, the only real problem I see with your strategy is that the map does not reflect the true terain and infrastucture of Malaya. That Kuantan to Jahore superhighway makes your strategy most logical, but in reality that road should be running north south along the west coast which makes Yamashita's strategy more understandable. I agree that Japan did and should have the wherewithall to land anywhere on the east coast, but the tradeoff should be an extremely slow and difficult advance that is hard to keep properly supplied. Take that road out and add jungle terrain to the east coast and if you can still pull it off then great. Otherwise I fear it currently makes it too easy for the Japanese player, practically handing Singapore on a silver plater.

PS
I apologize for repeating myself as I also alluded to this on the other thread.

Regards.

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 54
- 6/27/2003 1:27:57 PM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Posted by TIMJOT
[QUOTE]PS
I apologize for repeating myself as I also alluded to this on the other thread. [/QUOTE]

My turn (I responded in the other thread as well).

Point taken that it appears that the landing by the 18th IJA Division was only around regimental strength but as I outlined in my reponse, if you can land a regiment somewhere in the game then you can land a division in the game at the same place. It just takes longer.

[QUOTE]That Kuantan to Jahore superhighway makes your strategy most logical, but in reality that road should be running north south along the west coast which makes Yamashita's strategy more understandable.[/QUOTE]

The Kuantan-Jahore superhighway is being deliberately avoided in my alpha game and is expected to be corrected on the actual map in the near future. By the way, my landing is at Mersing not Kuantan, so I wouldn't be using it for the Japanese anyway. The British are also barred from using it.

As to
[QUOTE]This was because supplying a whole army or even one division as it advanced inland would be next to impossible through the wilderness of the southern east coast.l[/QUOTE]

The point of contention is that my references indicate that a "motorway" existed between Mersing and the area around Johore Bharu (on the southern tip of Malaya where a good road then connected it to nearby Singapore) and indications were that it made a good enough approach route to concern the British.

My game play strategy is built on the assumption that the justified presence of this road (not a highway but better than a trail) in the game would make a viable march route through the "jungle" hex in between the two towns.

If you have any information that contradicts the existence of this "motorway", please post it in my other thread. The more information we can gather, the better.

Cheers

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 55
MOTORWAY.... - 6/27/2003 9:09:21 PM   
Mike Scholl

 

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline 		....might be overstating it. Though the road from Endau
(where the Japanese actually landed) through Mersing,
Jemaluang, and Kota Tinggi to Jahore Bahru wasn't the worst
in Malaysia and probably qualifies as a road most of the year.
But during the 250" of anual rainfall of the Northeast Monsoon
between November and February, Trail might be more descriptive
as much of it was subject to flooding and washouts during that
time.

The Japanese DID manage to bring not only a regiment but
a fair amount of supply for their final assult on Singapore in this
way, so with a lot of work it's probably usable. Of course that
fair amount of supply wasn't enough to keep them from being
on the verge of running out of ammunition after a few days fighting..., so we're not talking about massive shipments either.

How well this route would hold up under heavier traffic I don't
know..., but I suspect it would deteriorate rapidly and require
a heavy investment of engineering work to stay usable.

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 56
- 6/28/2003 1:02:06 AM   
Drongo

 

Posts: 2205
Joined: 7/12/2002
From: Melb. Oztralia
Status: offline 		Posted by Mike Scholl
[QUOTE]How well this route would hold up under heavier traffic I don't know..., but I suspect it would deteriorate rapidly and require a heavy investment of engineering work to stay usable.
[/QUOTE]

Point taken.

I have no idea whether road capabilities in different weather conditions, ability to cope with heavy traffic use and road repair will/should be modeled in a game the size of WITP. Maybe one of the other testers know.

_____________________________

Have no fear,
drink more beer.

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 57
- 6/28/2003 1:46:49 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Drongo
[B]Posted by TIMJOT


If you have any information that contradicts the existence of this "motorway", please post it in my other thread. The more information we can gather, the better.

Cheers [/B][/QUOTE]


Not any that contradicts its existence, but several maps contradicts its location. Some maps show the road running westward roughly between Gemas and Jahore Bharu eventually connecting to the western road network. Other maps show it running south along the coast toward Jahore Bharu. Perhaps there were two roads but I havent seen any maps that depict both.

I agree Mersing is a valid entry point as long as the terrain and road is correctly modeled. As you said it concerned the Brits enough that it tied down an entire Brigade of the Aussie 8th Division for much of the campaign. I just think it should be extremely difficult to push an entire army through there and keep it supplied. If indeed there is going to be a mid class road between trail and highway then thats fine, but if not I think the designers should in most cases that there is doubts of viability, should downgrade roads to trails. Lets face it there were very few "good " roads in SE Asia during this time period.

Regards

(in reply to Drongo)
Post #: 58
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
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

2.609