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] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
- 8/13/2003 11:12:06 PM   
TIMJOT

 

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

Understand your concern here TIMJOT, but in fairness, your example works the other way too. You are highlighting the potential issues on the ability of the attacker to land so many troops so quickly but are passing over the equally unlikely possibility of a mass attack by the defender in such a short period of time. This is not Tarawa, or Okinawa after all....this is a large island in peacetime condition, and one that just suffered a devastating attack which has communicaitons and command/control disrupted. The only two actual combat formations are not at the beachhead, ready to try to throw the invaders back into the sea on a moment's notice. How then does one judge what is fair then? If the Japanese should be considered in no condition to attack....how much of the defenders should be allowed to counterattack? I have problems envisioning gaggles of US servicemen driving up to the beachheads in whatever military or civilian vehicles that can be comendered and staging a "bums rush" of their own :D
. [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree mostly, but I wouldnt worry to much on the flip side. As the AAR indicates the was no counterattack at all on the first day other than a bombardment that netted only 34 calsualties. Oahu is really not very large only about 35 miles by 24 miles end to end. I understand its an abstraction but its not to unreasonable that 50k troops could concentrate fairly quickly within 50 mile hex. That being said I really do not have a problem with the defenders not mounting an attack until the second day, which seems reasonable, but more that the invaders could land 90k+ troops and 900 guns in a single day while under fire from CD batteries and air attacks. Again its an abstraction so its too much to expect individual terrain to be modeled, but I think that landing rates should be effected by;

1) Disruption by combat. (CD fire, air attacks, surface TF attacks)

2) Disruption by weather. As it is bad weather only helps invasions by shielding them from air attacks. As far as I know it has no corresponding effecting on disemparkation rates.

3) Defensive concentration. The number troops concentrated within a 50 mile hex.


Mogami,

Could the realatively high disembarkation rate be do to PH large port size? If so shouldnt all amphib assaults against enemy controlled hex be based on a 0 port level? It is not as if the the Japanese could make use of the port facilities.

(in reply to Mike_B20)
Post #: 91
- 8/13/2003 11:13:50 PM   
Mike_B20

 

Posts: 389
Joined: 2/13/2003
From: Sydney, Australia
Status: offline 		I thought you were after the hula girls ( what a morale booster! )and those garish Hawaiian shirts.

*mind boggles at the thought of 150,000 outrageously attired Japanese 'tourists', posing at local sights for pictures to send home*

_____________________________

Never give up, never surrender

(in reply to Mike_B20)
Post #: 92
Re: unloading - 8/13/2003 11:31:42 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, I did the math on my unloading rate. It was 37 men per hour per transport

37x24=888x100 transports=88,000 troops per 24 hours (there were over 100 AP) [/B][/QUOTE]

Well on the face of it that rate doesnt seem too unreasonable, but, actually it would be impossible to keep up that rate countinuously over a 24 hour period. I think there needs to be a dimminishing return when it comes to the number of transports within a hex.

Again, the real world example of Linguyen 41. The Japanese with 76 transports were only able to put ashore less than a full division with virtually no heavy equipment in the first 24 hours. That was with no real opposition to speak of. Although there was some bad weather to contend with.

(in reply to Mike_B20)
Post #: 93
- 8/13/2003 11:35:39 PM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike_B20
[B]

*mind boggles at the thought of 150,000 outrageously attired Japanese 'tourists', posing at local sights for pictures to send home* [/B][/QUOTE]

Not too mind boggleing, Have you been to Hawaii lately? Sounds like a typical day in Honolulu. :D

(in reply to Mike_B20)
Post #: 94
Re: Grognard - 8/13/2003 11:38:18 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mogami
[B]Hi, Nik if you were half the grognard you think you are you would know it is pineapples not coconuts that Hawaii will supply to Japanese war machine........dude [/B][/QUOTE]

"coconuts" sounded better.

Its the effect man.....the comic EFFECT!

I question your evidence though.....only way to resolve this is for you to buy me a ticket to Oahu. I will investigate whether or not there are pineapples or coconuts there. I will start my investigation at pearl Harbor.....lots of coconut trees there i hear

:D

(in reply to Mike_B20)
Post #: 95
- 8/13/2003 11:44:52 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT
[B]I agree mostly, but I wouldnt worry to much on the flip side. As the AAR indicates the was no counterattack at all on the first day other than a bombardment that netted only 34 calsualties. Oahu is really not very large only about 35 miles by 24 miles end to end. I understand its an abstraction but its not to unreasonable that 50k troops could concentrate fairly quickly within 50 mile hex. That being said I really do not have a problem with the defenders not mounting an attack until the second day, which seems reasonable, but more that the invaders could land 90k+ troops and 900 guns in a single day while under fire from CD batteries and air attacks. Again its an abstraction so its too much to expect individual terrain to be modeled, but I think that landing rates should be effected by;

1) Disruption by combat. (CD fire, air attacks, surface TF attacks)

2) Disruption by weather. As it is bad weather only helps invasions by shielding them from air attacks. As far as I know it has no corresponding effecting on disemparkation rates.

3) Defensive concentration. The number troops concentrated within a 50 mile hex.

[/quote]

perhaps. I'm just worried that too much work on downgrading the attacking troops would result in easy defenses by the established troops. One tactic that comes to mind right away is the one where the player sets his defending units to "shock attack" before there are even any troops to land, that way they "do" attack on the first day. (attack options should be greyed out unless there are units to attack IMO)

yes the Island is not that big but as with the Oz example, i just dont buy that you can move a division on 24 hours notice on the fly. Not without there having been much advanced preperation which wouldn't be here for this example.

So while i can see some kind of defensive counterattack within 24 hours, i think it would have to have the same checks as on the invader, meaning disruption checks and less than full strength being brought to bear.

Its a quandry to be sure. I think in general that any landing "not" on an atoll should be considered not to be an "assault" with the expectation that the two sides would not be able to immediately go into full pitched battle. the hexes after all are 60 miles.

(in reply to Mike_B20)
Post #: 96
Re: Bums rush - 8/13/2003 11:49:49 PM   
TIMJOT

 

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

If USA had tried a shock attack they should (UV/WITP does not do this) have been blown to bits by Naval bombardment (I think my BB/CA should have fired counter Btry at USA arty) [/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed your BB/CA should be able to provide counter Btry fire, but in a dual between ships and shore batteries, (especially the type and concentration found at PH, Corrigedore, Sigapore) the CDs have the decided advantage. Not sure about the PH defences but any direct sea assault of Manila or Singapore would have been suicide without a long drawn out reduction of those fortresses.

(in reply to Mike_B20)
Post #: 97
- 8/13/2003 11:56:01 PM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Singapore had 15 inch guns

Manila had Fort Drum with four 14 inch guns and while the turrets were penetrable, i doubt the concrete shell would have been breached even by 16inch fire.

The BB's would be able to stand off against the 8inch guns and bombard though how well they'd do i suppose is arguable. The Japanese could have used float planes though to help range in on them. Combined with some Kido Butai i think they could do some serious damage to the PH batteries.

Still, from Mogami's description it sounds like they gave better than they got. I agree that hits from coastal batteries should be added to the combat report. Makes it really hard to judge in testing how well they are doing.

I did in fact run one test with a transport fleet going to Singapore. The resulting damage did seem a little sparce and of course as mentioned, there is no real coding to factor in disruption of unloading while under fire, so unless the AP is "sunk", it still unloads even if under fire!

(in reply to Mike_B20)
Post #: 98
- 8/14/2003 12:01:50 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Course thats another example of the game engine's abstractness too.. Unlike the approaches to SInapore and Manilla, the Japanese at Oahu could land far away from the CD batteries if they chose (and why would they not!!!)

but because of game limitations, they had no choice but to be subjected to all that firepower

(in reply to Mike_B20)
Post #: 99
- 8/14/2003 12:05:07 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]
Its a quandry to be sure. I think in general that any landing "not" on an atoll should be considered not to be an "assault" with the expectation that the two sides would not be able to immediately go into full pitched battle. the hexes after all are 60 miles. [/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed, but perhaps there should at least be some sort of modifier for ilslands and atols that are smaller than 50mi-60mi? hex. I had no problem with your Malay test landing where your forces recieved little resistence from a single Brigade defending 50 miles of shore, but 2 Divisions within the confines of Oahu is quite a different circumstance. At the very least they would certainly make a breakout from the beachhead very difficult.

Again, I do think the whole IJN and 150k+ troops should and would eventually capture PH, but 3 days seems to me to be a little too optimistic even for the Japanese often overly ambitious time schedules.

(in reply to Mike_B20)
Post #: 100
- 8/14/2003 12:16:00 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]Course thats another example of the game engine's abstractness too.. Unlike the approaches to SInapore and Manilla, the Japanese at Oahu could land far away from the CD batteries if they chose (and why would they not!!!)

but because of game limitations, they had no choice but to be subjected to all that firepower [/B][/QUOTE]

True but if they do not land near PH then they would have had to land 150k troops, consolidate the BH, then march across the island with 2000 guns and mount an attack, all within 3 days.

I think you are right there needs to be a retreat within hex option that is maybe based on morale. It might limit these quick total collapses.

(in reply to Mike_B20)
Post #: 101
- 8/14/2003 1:11:10 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		agreed. The proliferation of surrender when retreat paths are blocked tends to lead to excessive casualties in a very short time frame.

(in reply to Mike_B20)
Post #: 102
- 8/14/2003 3:59:40 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]agreed. The proliferation of surrender when retreat paths are blocked tends to lead to excessive casualties in a very short time frame. [/B][/QUOTE]

However, mass surrender ( ala Singapore) shouldnt be impossible. Thats why IMO morale should play a role.

(in reply to Mike_B20)
Post #: 103
- 8/14/2003 4:12:47 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT
[B]However, mass surrender ( ala Singapore) shouldnt be impossible. Thats why IMO morale should play a role. [/B][/QUOTE]

agreed. Otherwise land combat would get entirely too bogged down. So morale, + terrain, + random? + nationality should all factor in.

Terrain is probably the most important factor. Big difference between Singapore, or Baatan vs Oahu....or Lunga. Then again a defeated opponent with little to no supply will soon take care of the problem itself

Unfortunately supply usage as i've mentioned, seems a bit wacked to me.....especially in unfavorable terrain when not attacking

(in reply to Mike_B20)
Post #: 104
- 8/14/2003 4:31:05 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]agreed. Otherwise land combat would get entirely too bogged down. So morale, + terrain, + random? + nationality should all factor in.

Terrain is probably the most important factor. Big difference between Singapore, or Baatan vs Oahu....or Lunga. Then again a defeated opponent with little to no supply will soon take care of the problem itself

Unfortunately supply usage as i've mentioned, seems a bit wacked to me.....especially in unfavorable terrain when not attacking [/B][/QUOTE]

I hadnt thought of nationality. I suppose mass surrender of a IJA force should be almost zero. Forceing an allied player to fight battes of aniliation as they did historically.

Other than jungle is actual terrain on individual islands hexes even being considered?

(in reply to Mike_B20)
Post #: 105
- 8/14/2003 4:47:28 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		Yes, though i dont think it will get more specific than basic descriptions, (i.e. jungle...mountains...plains...coastal etc etc)

and of course Malarial zones.

(in reply to Mike_B20)
Post #: 106
- 8/14/2003 4:48:33 AM   
gus

 

Posts: 237
Joined: 3/16/2002
From: Corvallis, OR
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by TIMJOT
[B]However, mass surrender ( ala Singapore) shouldnt be impossible. Thats why IMO morale should play a role. [/B][/QUOTE]

Agreed, in the early stages of the war the Allies were under the impression that they were fighting a 'civilized' war. After Singapore, Bataan etc. their eyes were opened to the reality of the situation so I think in game terms the possibility of surrender for Allied troops (in similar situations) should diminish as the war enters 1943, 1944 ... .

-g

(in reply to Mike_B20)
Post #: 107
- 8/14/2003 5:03:08 AM   
TIMJOT

 

Posts: 1822
Joined: 4/30/2001
Status: offline 		[QUOTE]Originally posted by Nikademus
[B]Yes, though i dont think it will get more specific than basic descriptions, (i.e. jungle...mountains...plains...coastal etc etc)

and of course Malarial zones. [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes, but in a place like Oahu, that has Mountains, plains, jungle in different areas of the island, how does the engine differentiate the terrain or does it?

(in reply to Mike_B20)
Post #: 108
- 8/14/2003 5:28:20 AM   
Nikademus


Posts: 25684
Joined: 5/27/2000
From: Alien spacecraft
Status: offline 		I'll double check but i think that you can only have one terrain type per hex. (this can include rivers or waterways + terrain)

(in reply to Mike_B20)
Post #: 109
Can you picture this.... - 8/14/2003 7:41:56 AM   
RevRick


Posts: 2617
Joined: 9/16/2000
From: Thomasville, GA
Status: offline 		75,000 IJA troops advancing on Pearl with running across the Oahu landscape with 75,000 more IJA carrying backpacks with coconut half shells clopping them together, thereby creating the effect of the largest cavalry charge in history.:D

_____________________________

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility.” ― Dietrich Bonhoeffer

(in reply to Mike_B20)
Post #: 110
Add to the picture - 8/14/2003 7:47:50 AM   
BillBrown


Posts: 2335
Joined: 6/15/2002
Status: offline 		75,000 topless hula dancers who lost their coconut shells. :rolleyes:

(in reply to Mike_B20)
Post #: 111
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> Uncommon Valor - Campaign for the South Pacific >> Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4]
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

0.609