Slitherine

quote:

I dont see it as hurting the Allies at all since they have unlimited supply. I see it as slowing the pace of a game that is already admittedly accelerated. The rule would also slow Japanese building as well.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mr.Frag

Would you also want this limit to be imposed against repairs of existing facilities? Just trying to see the logic all the way through end to end.

quote:



Had enough of the "I have these so the game is broken because I can't use them" from the aircraft thread without going down the troops path and seeing it there too.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nikademus

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

"Nikademus" do you think you can mention this thread to "Kid" in order for him to add it to his famous list?

I'll mention it.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

One woman can have a baby in nine months but nine women can't have a baby in one month.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

I like this idea of limiting the number of units that can work on a single base. If the developers have gone to the effort of making construction rates resemble actual historical rates then they probably don't want players dumping 10x the number of units in a location and building an insta-base overnight.

quote:


One woman can have a baby in nine months but nine women can't have a baby in one month.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

This seems like a non-issue to me.

If it took 2 units 53 days to do each airstrip, is there any reason why 12 units couldn't have built 6 airstrips in 53 days?

That's the issue for me, what's the limiting factor? If it's supply, then that's already dealt with.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

One woman can have a baby in nine months but nine women can't have a baby in one month.

quote:


If this is just an attempt to stamp out "gamey" play, well anybody that puts 12 units in one spot is making themselves vulnerable. Also, they're not building anywhere else. Personally, I would rather build in 4 places than just 1.

It seems to me that more often than not, attempts to fix gamey exploits just hurt those that play it straight. I'm starting to think we need two versions (at least) of this game. One for AI players and one for PBEM players (and maybe a fantasy version for the Axis players).

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

This seems like a non-issue to me.

If it took 2 units 53 days to do each airstrip, is there any reason why 12 units couldn't have built 6 airstrips in 53 days?

That's the issue for me, what's the limiting factor? If it's supply, then that's already dealt with.

I will use this great analogy:

quote:

ORIGINAL: Damien Thorn

One woman can have a baby in nine months but nine women can't have a baby in one month.

The Tinian and B-29's was _TOP_ priority US project and yet they put just 2 (two) ENG brigades on that place.

This is not because they could not have spared additional units - it was because there was no place there to out additional ENG guys.

Supply is also not a factor here at all. Tinian is not "dot" HEX (and there is no "dot" to be build into B-29 base on WitP map I think).

quote:


If this is just an attempt to stamp out "gamey" play, well anybody that puts 12 units in one spot is making themselves vulnerable. Also, they're not building anywhere else. Personally, I would rather build in 4 places than just 1.

It seems to me that more often than not, attempts to fix gamey exploits just hurt those that play it straight. I'm starting to think we need two versions (at least) of this game. One for AI players and one for PBEM players (and maybe a fantasy version for the Axis players).

Put dozens and dozens of ENG units together with defending INF/AAA/CD force and they are not vulnerable at all.


The real problem (just as "Nikademus" said) is WitP ability of acceleration - the things player can do in WitP is 10x faster than it was possible historically.

IMHO we _MUST_ slow the WitP game pace down and realistic building time is most certainly one of these important things (B-29 bases were death to Japan but it took months for them to be build - it didn't happen as "overnight WitP wonder")...


Leo "Apollo11"

quote:

ORIGINAL: tanjman
Just two engineer brigades equals 8 to 12 Seabee battalions, circa 20,000 personnel including service & support troops. Thats a major work force in anyones book.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11


I will use this great analogy:

quote:

The Tinian and B-29's was _TOP_ priority US project and yet they put just 2 (two) ENG brigades on that place.

This is not because they could not have spared additional units - it was because there was no place there to out additional ENG guys.

Supply is also not a factor here at all. Tinian is not "dot" HEX (and there is no "dot" to be build into B-29 base on WitP map I think).

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

I have no idea why they used the amount of Seabees that they did but they did a lot more than just build some airstrips. What they did was bigger than anything else in the world. Considering the scale, it was done pretty darn fast. However, had they chosen to put more engineers there, I don't see any reason why they couldn't have.

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

IMHO, in WitP (same as in UV) players can do various things that are ahistorical and/or were practically impossible to do in WWII...

One such thing that bothers me much is speed of building up the bases (airbase/port) and fortifications because players can stack enormous number of ENG units into one HEX and, practically, build overnight.


So... to counter that I thought of very simple but effective solution!


Leo's suggestion of how to slow building speed down by limiting ENG unit stacking

Every HEX has SPS (Standard Potential Size) limiters (for both port and airbase size).

So... let's use combined numbers of SPS (for port and airbase size) as variable to limit the number of ENG squads able to work at one HEX at same time (note that single ENG vehicle represents 5 squads)!

Since SPS anyway means size we can elegantly use it to depict room available for ENG units to work!

I am sure that proper and well balanced formula can be devised for this to reflect historical building times and capabilities.


Privisory Example

Let's say there is HEX with "dot" (i.e. it is currently undeveloped with both port and airbase size of 0).

That HEX has SPS for port of 0 (meaning that biggest port build can be 3) and SPS for airbase of 2 (meaning that biggest airbase build can be 5).

This means that our limiting variable is 0 + 2 = 2 for that HEX.

If we agree that formula (purely speculative at this point since proper formula must be thought of carefully) means 30 ENG squads per variable this means that MAX number of ENG squads able to work at that HEX is 2 x 30 = 60 and that any excess of ENG units would not speed up the building at all because there simple isn't room for them to work!



What do you think gentleman?

Matrix/2by3?


Leo "Apollo11"

quote:

ORIGINAL: BartM

once again I'll be the devils advocate here in reguards to "historical".

Regaurdless of what "was" there, the purpose of this game is to...

a) command your units to the best of your ability

b) try and not make the mistakes that were made (20x20 hindsight)

c) attempt a victory

notice I didn't specify a side, this applies to either the Japanees or the Allies.

if, in fact, you wish to place 12 seebee groups on one base to expand it, then elsewhere in the world you have 11 less seebees to place. (make sense ?) just because someone wishes to place all their engineers in one basket, means other areas are lacking in growth. Perhaps if you see this happening, cut the base off, make the opponant pay for such a huge expansion.

I realize what was "historical"... and my answer to this STILL remains. if you wish to play a historical game, then jun 4th, 1942, as the japaneese, you need to park your four large aircraft carriers off Midway, stand down your a/c and let the allies destroy them.

That, ... was historical....

the purpose is to change, address issues and make decisions that perhaps was unavailable at the time. We have the luxury of knowing what happened, knowing what is required to win, what we have to do to stop the opponent...

They didn't.....

put your history books away, play the game, and pray for some honest patches that need to fix the buggy game, asides from that, watch the history channel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arnir

quote:

ORIGINAL: BartM

once again I'll be the devils advocate here in reguards to "historical".

Regaurdless of what "was" there, the purpose of this game is to...

a) command your units to the best of your ability

b) try and not make the mistakes that were made (20x20 hindsight)

c) attempt a victory

notice I didn't specify a side, this applies to either the Japanees or the Allies.

if, in fact, you wish to place 12 seebee groups on one base to expand it, then elsewhere in the world you have 11 less seebees to place. (make sense ?) just because someone wishes to place all their engineers in one basket, means other areas are lacking in growth. Perhaps if you see this happening, cut the base off, make the opponant pay for such a huge expansion.

I realize what was "historical"... and my answer to this STILL remains. if you wish to play a historical game, then jun 4th, 1942, as the japaneese, you need to park your four large aircraft carriers off Midway, stand down your a/c and let the allies destroy them.

That, ... was historical....

the purpose is to change, address issues and make decisions that perhaps was unavailable at the time. We have the luxury of knowing what happened, knowing what is required to win, what we have to do to stop the opponent...

They didn't.....

put your history books away, play the game, and pray for some honest patches that need to fix the buggy game, asides from that, watch the history channel

In general, I agree with this point of view. Even if Tinian was a top priority, one would have to prove that the US COULD not send any more engineers to speed up the process for the thesis to work. I don't know the answer to the question. Perhaps the US didn't want to stop other projects? Perhaps the timetable for the field was connected to other things? I don't know.

My concern is that if the game is tweaked every time someone complains that it did not historically happen that way, then why have the game? Just give me my money back and I'll buy documentaries.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arnir

<snip>

I just don't see this as being near the top of the priority pyramid.

<snip>

doesn't seem too outrageous to me.

<snip>

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arnir

<snip>

I just don't see this as being near the top of the priority pyramid.

<snip>

doesn't seem too outrageous to me.

<snip>

Since you bear a "Allied Fanboy" signature your comments are very understandable...

IHMO building of bases was one of the most important aspects of war in the Pacific in WWII and getting proper results here is _VERY_ important issue (building in WitP, same as it was in UV, is far too accelerated and prone to player abuse by stacking ENG units for example)...


Leo "Apollo11"

quote:

ORIGINAL: mjk428

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11


I will use this great analogy:

It would be a great analogy if it was applicable but it's not at all.

quote:

The Tinian and B-29's was _TOP_ priority US project and yet they put just 2 (two) ENG brigades on that place.

This is not because they could not have spared additional units - it was because there was no place there to out additional ENG guys.

Supply is also not a factor here at all. Tinian is not "dot" HEX (and there is no "dot" to be build into B-29 base on WitP map I think).

I have no idea why they used the amount of Seabees that they did but they did a lot more than just build some airstrips. What they did was bigger than anything else in the world. Considering the scale, it was done pretty darn fast. However, had they chosen to put more engineers there, I don't see any reason why they couldn't have.


The scruffy island of Tinian, 80 miles north of Guam, became an important operational base for the rest of the Pacific war. A prize catch, Tinian boasted three airfields and a fourth under construction. Even before the island had been secured, aviation engineers and Seabees were hard at work constructing the huge airbases necessary for the B-29 strategic bombers.

By mid-August 1944 Tinian was secure, and American Seabees began rebuilding a captured Japanese air strip at the north end of the island in one of the largest engineering projects of WWII. Less than one year later North Field was the largest airfield in the world, with four vast 2,600 - meter runways and a total of 19,000 combat missions launched against Japan.

Tinian got a face lifting which made it one of the most important bases of the war. On this remote rock, Seabees of the Sixth Brigade built the largest airfield in the world, larger even than Mayor LaGuardia's proposed Idlewild airport at Long Island which FORTUNE magazine (April 1945) had called the "biggest in the world." The total area of Idlewild wasn't even as large as one of the two parts of the B-29 field the Seabees built. The runways at Idlewild measured at 14.5 miles. Tinian North was almost 20 miles long. Tinian West is only a fraction smaller. Width of runways at "world's biggest airport" is only 300 feet. Large enough, but Tinian's measured from 425 to 500 feet.

The Seabees did all the construction on Tinian. No Army Engineers were there, as were on many of the previous jobs which were done jointly. Battalion builders hauled, blasted and packed down enough coral to fill three times the volume of Boulder Dam-nearly 112 million cubic yards of filling. And along with the airfields came the inevitable barracks, hospitals, chowhalls, BOQs, wells, warehouses, and chapels.

Tinian is about the same size and shape as Manhattan, and when U.S. forces occupied it during the war, they laid out a system of roads with the same general plan and orientation as on Manhattan. To carry the huge quantities of bombs up from the port at San Jose, two divided highways were built across Tinian. The GIs gave the roads names like Broadway, 8th Ave., and 86th street. The main north-south road, is Broadway, and it runs parallel to the other main north-south road, 8th Avenue. The fact that Tinian has streets named after streets in New York City has no connection with the Manhattan Project.

As soon as air service groups prepared the bases for occupancy, hundreds of B-29s began arriving in October and November, ready to undertake strategic bombing operations against the Japanese home islands. An airfield was ready for the first B-29 strike on 24 November. Camps on Tinian were constructed to house 50,000 U.S. troops and 1.2 million pounds of crops were produced, all of which were consumed on the island. By August 1945, a year after construction started, Tinian was the largest airbase in the world at the time, and accommodated nearly 1000 B-29s.

(from)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/tinian.htm