RE: 4E solution?!

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: 4E solution?!

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 >> RE: 4E solution?!

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: 4E solution?! - 11/21/2005 4:52:41 AM

tabpub

Posts: 1019
Joined: 8/10/2003
From: The Greater Chicagoland Area
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

quote:

ORIGINAL: tabpub

Not to sidetrack the VP discussion, but here is a quick thought on the whole basing/AV issue that has come up before. Please look it over and give some feedback on it.

My initial reaction? Japanese Fan-Boy nonsense! You only restrict 4-engined aircraft, of which the Japs have virtually none while the Allies have many. Might not have been your intention..., but that's the way it comes across.

Drop the fanboyism line and read the whole article. Said at the end of the 2nd to last paragraph to subsitute 2e at 2-1 for 4e. It's simply a starting point for a rationale discussion as to what an airfield size represents and a what a certain airfield complex could operate efficiently.

_____________________________

Sing to the tune of "Man on the Flying Trapeze"
..Oh! We fly o'er the treetops with inches to spare,
There's smoke in the cockpit and gray in my hair.
The tracers look fine as a strafin' we go.
But, brother, we're TOO God damn low...

(in reply to Mike Scholl)

Post #: 31

RE: 4E solution?! - 11/21/2005 5:03:44 AM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

Yeah I'd agree on the Beauforts, Vildebeasts, TIVs etc having the same sort of restriction as I suggested for the G3s and G4s. I just forgot about them since 6 TIVs with 50 experience, 35 fatigue and 30 morale pale in comparision to 60 G3s/G4s with 85 exp, 12 fatigue and 93 morale in their effect on play.

Experience does count for effectiveness but the bottom line is the availability of the loadouts. The same with big ship ammo, unlimited 500lb bombs and a whole host of other similar ordnance problems.

With the abstracted loadouts in WitP, we are going to have this situation. And for the most part, it cannot be corrected by house rules as we have little control over what gets loaded where.

Chez

_____________________________

Ret Navy AWCS (1972-1998)
VP-5, Jacksonville, Fl 1973-78
ASW Ops Center, Rota, Spain 1978-81
VP-40, Mt View, Ca 1981-87
Patrol Wing 10, Mt View, CA 1987-90
ASW Ops Center, Adak, Ak 1990-92
NRD Seattle 1992-96
VP-46, Whidbey Isl, Wa 1996-98

(in reply to spence)

Post #: 32

RE: 4E solution?! - 11/21/2005 12:06:58 PM

Sneer

Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline

let's increase number of supply points needed to rearm certain types of weapon
I can't imagine supplying number of torps or other strange things in WITP
there is enough micromanagement by now

BTW I have never seen few hundred of torps used in one place by now
only mass attacks was port attacks by nell/betty groups but
first : most of them used heavy bombs
second: It was initial war strike - bases were obviously oversupplied

did sb see more then 100 torps used in one place in very short time frame ?
I didn't
I don't see a problem with torp

_____________________________

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 33

RE: 4E solution?! - 11/21/2005 3:09:55 PM

worr

Posts: 901
Joined: 2/7/2001
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gunner333

To make it simple give a victory point not for shooting down a/c, but numbers of engine on that a/c.
Fighter: 1 victory point
2E: 2 victory points
4E: 4 victory points

Makes sense.

Worr, out

(in reply to gunner333)

Post #: 34

RE: 4E solution?! - 11/21/2005 10:18:08 PM

ChezDaJez

Posts: 3436
Joined: 11/12/2004
From: Chehalis, WA
Status: offline

quote:

did sb see more then 100 torps used in one place in very short time frame ?
I didn't
I don't see a problem with torp

The problem is that there are no restrictions on loading ordnance anywhere except for shipboard mines. While I'm not an advocate for restricting the loading of ordnance to specific size airfields or ports, I do wish that there was some way of designating specific airfileds and ports as having ordnance depots. Its basically already done this way with mines except the player has no control over where mines can be loaded.

My proposal would be to allow the player to designate certain ports and airfields as supply depots for these weapons. So if I wanted to be able to load mines, torpedoes, big gun ammo or whatever at Darwin, I would designate it as a ordnance depot and the game would assume that a certain portion of available supply (above the normal base supply requirements) would consist of these weapons. As attack missions were flown, supply would decrease to reflect their usage. Once supply decreased to base level requirements, then only CAP or search missions could be flown. These depots would be player designated and could be changed as the front moves forward or back. The number of these depots would be limited but I have no idea the number should be determined.

The benefit would be that players would be somewhat limited in where these weapons could be loaded but at the same time, the player would not have another level of micromanagement to deal with.

Now this idea may not be the best fix and I understand that changes such as this stand little chance of being implemented. But still, it's nice to dream.

Chez

_____________________________

(in reply to Sneer)

Post #: 35

RE: 4E solution?! - 11/21/2005 10:23:00 PM

Sneer

Posts: 2654
Joined: 10/29/2003
Status: offline

I like abstraction of supply in Witp otherwise turns will be spent on puting every piece of staff on transport
I think that cost of amm/torps in supply should be higher

_____________________________

(in reply to ChezDaJez)

Post #: 36

RE: 4E solution?! - 11/22/2005 12:48:04 AM

sfbaytf

Posts: 1122
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline

On a related note I remember seeing a while back that at one time the devs increased attrition effects, but too many people complained. Would increasing the effects of wear and tear help the problem?

(in reply to gunner333)

Post #: 37

RE: 4E solution?! - 11/22/2005 4:50:57 AM

RUPD3658

Posts: 6922
Joined: 8/28/2002
From: East Brunswick, NJ
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mc3744

Why is Noumea worth 1.500 point when fully developed, and Luganville only approx 30?

Two words.......native women

_____________________________

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has limits"- Darwin Awards 2003

"No plan survives contact with the enemy." - Field Marshall Helmuth von Moltke