Admiral's Edition General Thread

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: RAM

got a question...

the new, improved, FOW rules, will the magical "all-knowing-development-reports" dissapear from the turn reports?. I mean, if I sneak a construction team to an empty dot base, and I want to develop it in secret to give my opponent a really nasty suprise (something done in the pacific quite some times during WWII, as it was done in the alleutians, or even near tarawa), in WITP I run into two problems that make the tactic impossible to pull:

1- if I land my troops in an empty enemy base, they have to conquer it. Even if the nearest enemy is 2500 miles away, and there's not a single soul in said base, the enemy WILL know you have landed there and taken the base. So, he will know you are there and probably will assume you will develop the base...no surprise factor and probably your whole plan has been compromised (if it relied in taking the enmy by surprise).

2- if I land my troops in a dot base the enemy has let unconquered, he won't know if I have landed my troops. So no problem...until you actually dare to develop the base increasing its AF or port level. Again, no matter he's 3000 miles away and has no means of knowing what was happening there, the enemy will know you are there and that you are developing the base. Gone is the effect of surprise.


Unless the problems involved in points 1 and 2 are solved, in the game you can't develop bases secretly, something that in real life happened several times. Actually in the game you know in real time the AF and port level of each base in the map, no matter you've done any kind of recon over it or not...and that could be improved, too.

I would say it would be a nice touch to let each player to know just what he can know about the base developments the enemy is doing. And would add an extra importance to regular and continous recon. And information on where the enemy is landing should be restricted...you can't know the enemy is somewhere if you don't have any means to find out he's there... is any of this included in AE?

thanks in advance for the answers

I would not assume that an empty base - or even a dot - is really empty. We have a lot of units in WITP and we will have a lot more in AE - but I still would not assume that an empty hex is empty. And this works the same for both sides - 2 guys and a radio are there for a dot. Maybe 10 guys and 2 radios for an empty base.

In real life there are many rear area units that will not even be represented in AE. MP units, rail units, port operations units, etc.

These things being said, FoW for bases has been increased.

[RAM]

glad to hear the FOW rules for bases are getting improved .

About the "two guys with a radio", that can be true to some extent, but it didn't always happen that wherever a group of soldiers was disembarked, there was someone to report it. the game giving information on bases captured because of the abstraction involved within the game mechanics is ok, but getting info on certain bases being improved...well, as I mentioned before in the alleutians the US developed air fields without the japanese knowing it until they were on the receiving end of the attacks coming from those fields. In the game that would be impossible to do...just hope in AE something like this could happen without the game giving the secret away...

would make for some nice surprises for an overconfident opponent in PBEM

[BB57]

If I send O19 to Tokyo to leave a little present for the next ship that comes by and my closest unit is a couple hundred miles away when it is found. I shouldn't get any info on the combat report screen. If I get any info at all it should be on the intel screen.

To take this a step farther if I sink a ship that I don't get a report right away I should get a report on the intel screen rather than just quietly showing up on the ships sunk screen. With errors of course, I believe my namesake was reported sunk three times.

Will this be possible with AE or will we have to wait for WitPII.

Thanks you guys are doing a great job the way it sounds, keep up the good work.



  

[Shark7]

ORIGINAL: BB57

If I send O19 to Tokyo to leave a little present for the next ship that comes by and my closest unit is a couple hundred miles away when it is found. I shouldn't get any info on the combat report screen. If I get any info at all it should be on the intel screen.

To take this a step farther if I sink a ship that I don't get a report right away I should get a report on the intel screen rather than just quietly showing up on the ships sunk screen. With errors of course, I believe my namesake was reported sunk three times.

Will this be possible with AE or will we have to wait for WitPII.

Thanks you guys are doing a great job the way it sounds, keep up the good work.

I've always just taken it to mean that I picked up the distress call, or got the info from some other source. As far as the silent sinking showing up on the sunken ships screen...yeah, in the intel reports would be a nice way. SigInt screen would probably be most appropriate place for those bits of info.

[GaryChildress]

Speaking of empty bases, I wouldn't think 10 guys and 2 radios would be able to inflict 500 casualties or more on any landing force. Will AE make any changes to the amphibious landing routines for undefended bases? Landing on undefended bases seems to cause an awful lot of casualties.

[wworld7]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Speaking of empty bases, I wouldn't think 10 guys and 2 radios would be able to inflict 500 casualties or more on any landing force. Will AE make any changes to the amphibious landing routines for undefended bases? Landing on undefended bases seems to cause an awful lot of casualties.

The men are not killed.

They trip walking out of the landing craft and need to rest, maybe get a bowl soup and a cup of coffee. And in no time they are as good as new.

[GaryChildress]

Whew! I was worried there for a minute. [:D]

[GaryChildress]

Cid elluded to an interesting idea in the scenario forum. When reinforcements arrive in Japan or the US or Karachi or wherever, instead of giving them a specific command to be assigned to, why not assign them all to a static command "Home Defense" or something to begin with and then give the player enough political points to assign them wherever they are needed given the unique situation he finds himself in.

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Cid elluded to an interesting idea in the scenario forum. When reinforcements arrive in Japan or the US or Karachi or wherever, instead of giving them a specific command to be assigned to, why not assign them all to a static command "Home Defense" or something to begin with and then give the player enough political points to assign them wherever they are needed given the unique situation he finds himself in.

Agreed! Alternatively, switching a unit from one unrestricted command to another could be free of any cost in PP. I hate to send units assigned to NorPac to Australia, even though this doesn't affect replacements/fighting capability at all.

[okami]

ORIGINAL: VSWG

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Cid elluded to an interesting idea in the scenario forum. When reinforcements arrive in Japan or the US or Karachi or wherever, instead of giving them a specific command to be assigned to, why not assign them all to a static command "Home Defense" or something to begin with and then give the player enough political points to assign them wherever they are needed given the unique situation he finds himself in.

Agreed! Alternatively, switching a unit from one unrestricted command to another could be free of any cost in PP. I hate to send units assigned to NorPac to Australia, even though this doesn't affect replacements/fighting capability at all.

What about making all commands restricted. Then make a new command called Transport Command. Political Points would be spent to change from a command to Transport Command but none would be paid to change from Transport command to any other. Then have huge penalties for trying to operate in Transport Command?

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: okami

ORIGINAL: VSWG

ORIGINAL: Gary Childress

Cid elluded to an interesting idea in the scenario forum. When reinforcements arrive in Japan or the US or Karachi or wherever, instead of giving them a specific command to be assigned to, why not assign them all to a static command "Home Defense" or something to begin with and then give the player enough political points to assign them wherever they are needed given the unique situation he finds himself in.

Agreed! Alternatively, switching a unit from one unrestricted command to another could be free of any cost in PP. I hate to send units assigned to NorPac to Australia, even though this doesn't affect replacements/fighting capability at all.

What about making all commands restricted. Then make a new command called Transport Command. Political Points would be spent to change from a command to Transport Command but none would be paid to change from Transport command to any other. Then have huge penalties for trying to operate in Transport Command.

Sounds like a lot of extra coding.

Also, assume you have assigned the 2nd Marines to SoPac in 1942. In 1944, you want to use the division for a CentPac invasion. With your method, I would have to spend PP to reassign the unit. IMO this reassignment should be for free.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: BB57

If I send O19 to Tokyo to leave a little present for the next ship that comes by and my closest unit is a couple hundred miles away when it is found. I shouldn't get any info on the combat report screen. If I get any info at all it should be on the intel screen.

To take this a step farther if I sink a ship that I don't get a report right away I should get a report on the intel screen rather than just quietly showing up on the ships sunk screen. With errors of course, I believe my namesake was reported sunk three times.

Will this be possible with AE or will we have to wait for WitPII.

Thanks you guys are doing a great job the way it sounds, keep up the good work.
 

We have made a bunch of improvements to FoW across the board, I'm sure we've missed a few and in truth ... total fog of war would probably not be indicated and would have the serious issue of relativity. In other words, exactly whose perspective are we presenting? One of the good and bad aspects of WITP is that the player has many jobs and many different levels of command, and increasing fog of war beyond a certain point would require changing the nature of who the player is and that would clearly be Out of Scope.

[okami]

ORIGINAL: VSWG

ORIGINAL: okami

ORIGINAL: VSWG



Agreed! Alternatively, switching a unit from one unrestricted command to another could be free of any cost in PP. I hate to send units assigned to NorPac to Australia, even though this doesn't affect replacements/fighting capability at all.

What about making all commands restricted. Then make a new command called Transport Command. Political Points would be spent to change from a command to Transport Command but none would be paid to change from Transport command to any other. Then have huge penalties for trying to operate in Transport Command.

Sounds like a lot of extra coding.

Also, assume you have assigned the 2nd Marines to SoPac in 1942. In 1944, you want to use the division for a CentPac invasion. With your method, I would have to spend PP to reassign the unit. IMO this reassignment should be for free.

Without a cost what would stop you from sending the same unit anywhere. Currently we use houserules to stop the gross gameplay of say moving Kwangtung Army units anywhere on the Asian continent. Let's try and solve the problem and eliminate the need for houserules. Ask yourself this question, that same 2nd Marine Division has just landed on Tarawa. How long before it is ready for another amphibious operation? That is the PP cost. It is great to have flexible control of your forces but to much control and you end up with island hoping at an island a week. Which was not sustainable at anytime during the war. There may be another way around this. If you have thought of it please enlighten me, I am only looking for solutions.

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: okami

Without a cost what would stop you from sending the same unit anywhere. Currently we use houserules to stop the gross gameplay of say moving Kwangtung Army units anywhere on the Asian continent.

Kwangtung and China Command (both sides) would be restricted commands.

How long before it is ready for another amphibious operation? That is the PP cost.

IMO this is simulated by preparation points.

[CaptDave]

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: CaptDave

Don't recall seeing this one, yet. Will installation of AE be such that it's reasonably simple to switch back and forth between AE and the original WitP, at least no worse than the batch files that exist now for the variants? If I'm playing PBEM with someone who can't afford to upgrade his computer (WitP was a gift from me in the first place), I don't want to be limited to the original myself!

This isn't really a big problem. Just make a "copy" of your original WITP, drop all the saves, change the name to WITP-AE, and install AE on this copy. Then you have two completely seperate "games", and no need to worry about the limitations of anyone you want to play against...

That's what I would have guessed, but I work for a software developer and know things don't always turn out as normal people would expect them to! For instance, while I used to maintain the install script for the product I work on, now it's handled by our home office, using a different install tool which is not friendly toward multiple installations. Thanks for your reply!

[okami]

ORIGINAL: VSWG

ORIGINAL: okami

Without a cost what would stop you from sending the same unit anywhere. Currently we use houserules to stop the gross gameplay of say moving Kwangtung Army units anywhere on the Asian continent.

Kwangtung and China Command (both sides) would be restricted commands.

Currently Kwangtung and China are restricted commands for the Japanese and still a player can without spending any PP move units from these two commands anywhere they have a land connection too. Only aircraft is truly restricted by restricted commands unless you are on an island.

How long before it is ready for another amphibious operation? That is the PP cost.

IMO this is simulated by preparation points.

I have played many allied players who do not wait for or need their preparation points. This is not restrictive enough and it effects both side.

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: CaptDave

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl

ORIGINAL: CaptDave

Don't recall seeing this one, yet. Will installation of AE be such that it's reasonably simple to switch back and forth between AE and the original WitP, at least no worse than the batch files that exist now for the variants? If I'm playing PBEM with someone who can't afford to upgrade his computer (WitP was a gift from me in the first place), I don't want to be limited to the original myself!

This isn't really a big problem. Just make a "copy" of your original WITP, drop all the saves, change the name to WITP-AE, and install AE on this copy. Then you have two completely seperate "games", and no need to worry about the limitations of anyone you want to play against...

That's what I would have guessed, but I work for a software developer and know things don't always turn out as normal people would expect them to! For instance, while I used to maintain the install script for the product I work on, now it's handled by our home office, using a different install tool which is not friendly toward multiple installations. Thanks for your reply!

[8D]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

Just FYI, AE will not overwrite your WITP installation. Once you have AE, you will be able to play original WITP as well as AE - they are installed in separate folders.

tm.asp?m=1640058

[VSWG]

ORIGINAL: okami

Currently Kwangtung and China are restricted commands for the Japanese and still a player can without spending any PP move units from these two commands anywhere they have a land connection too. Only aircraft is truly restricted by restricted commands unless you are on an island.

My suggestion doesn't change this fact, true, but neither does yours (Transport Command). So I guess you're asking for restrictions regarding ground movement for units attached to restricted commands - and you have my full support! [:)]

I have played many allied players who do not wait for or need their preparation points. This is not restrictive enough and it effects both side.

Someone has already mentioned that preparation points will become a lot more important in AE! [8D]

[okami]

ORIGINAL: VSWG

ORIGINAL: okami

Currently Kwangtung and China are restricted commands for the Japanese and still a player can without spending any PP move units from these two commands anywhere they have a land connection too. Only aircraft is truly restricted by restricted commands unless you are on an island.

My suggestion doesn't change this fact, true, but neither does yours (Transport Command). So I guess you're asking for restrictions regarding ground movement for units attached to restricted commands - and you have my full support! [:)]

I have played many allied players who do not wait for or need their preparation points. This is not restrictive enough and it effects both side.

Someone has already mentioned that preparation points will become a lot more important in AE! [8D]

Hopefully we are not the only ones who feel this way. I want the best solution whatever that is.

[witpqs]

I agree in principle, but I think the solution you propose will not help because it will create other problems. Already the restricted commands suffer from an artificial limitation that they cannot move by ship within their own (legitimate) command area. That is ridiculous. Personally I would rather do away with restricted commands and rely on the honor system - make the HR up front and both stick to it. If a real program restriction could be made to work I would support it, but so far all make more problems that they are worth, including the current system.