Why all of the off map areas?

[wdolson]

ORIGINAL: pad152
Andrew, stated this can be fixed by the player with the editor (removing/disable some of this map movement), I hope that's true. I'm just surprised that this is even in AE, it seems like such an advantage to the allied player. I think both players should be forced to move their forces on the same map.

It really isn't such a huge advantage. The offmap trip the long way around to Australia is very long. In the first year or so the Allies are going to find merchant ships tight. Especially long haul merchant ships. When we were testing moving supplies from Cape Town to India, Allied players found that while doable, it sucked up most of their longest range merchant ships. The haul to Australia from Cape Town is even further than India with very little in the way of bases to stop and get a refill.

Unless the Japanese have occupied the entire South Pacific, it is always much more economical for the Allies to ship supplies to Australia hooking south of Japanese possessions in the Central and South Pacific.

I have played AE as the Allies and I didn't see your concerns as a serious consideration. In the real world the Allies could ship supplies and troops via the southern route around Africa. They did it very little for the same reasons the Allies don't do it much in AE. It's a very long trip and very taxing on your limited resources.

The Allies don't have the bounty of merchies and supplies they had in WitP. At least not in 1942. Tying up all your valuable long range merchant ships on world cruises just to avoid the occasional Japanese sub is a foolish choice and an Allied player who does it will likely end up in worse shape down the line because a lot less supply is getting to Australia than would make it with the on map route.

If it takes twice the time and twice the fuel to go the long way (I haven't counted hexes, but that's a rough guess), you will be delivering half the cargo to Australia than using the on map route. If you want to move something from the eastern Pacific (near or in the US) to the Indian Ocean, it might be reasonable to do, but it's going to be costly in time and effort.

You have the disadvantage of not having played the game. It really isn't as bad as you think.

Bill

[pad152]

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

Could they have done it in real life?..I mean, gone the long way around?

This is a good question, I would say no for two reasons.

1. There were no bases/refueling stops in south Africa on the way to India/Australia, North Africa may have to have been taken first so southern bases could be securely built there to protect the shipping lanes. The US lost alot of shipping off the east coast of the US, the Atlantic was not a very save place for shipping in 1942.

2. US policy was suppose to be Europe first, yet by early 1943 we had more man/ships in the pacific than we had in Europe, our allies didn't like it, and I not sure we would have gotten away with it if we had to ship everything through the Atlantic. Even congress and senate where not fully aware of the build up in the pacific vs. Europe. There was still a real fear back then, Japan could invade the west coast of the US, which would have kept what was left of the pacific fleet on the west coast & Peal Harbor.

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: pad152

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

Could they have done it in real life?..I mean, gone the long way around?

This is a good question, I would say no for two reasons.

1. There were no bases/refueling stops in south Africa on the way to India/Australia, North Africa may have to have been taken first so southern bases could be securely built there to protect the shipping lanes. The US lost alot of shipping off the east coast of the US, the Atlantic was not a very save place for shipping in 1942.

2. US policy was suppose to be Europe first, yet by early 1943 we had more man/ships in the pacific than we had in Europe, our allies didn't like it, and I not sure we would have gotten away with it if we had to ship everything through the Atlantic. Even congress and senate where not fully aware of the build up in the pacific vs. Europe. There was still a real fear back then, Japan could invade the west coast of the US, which would have kept what was left of the pacific fleet on the west coast & Peal Harbor.

The USA did ship forces to the CBI via the Atlantic. And of course many ships took this route from the UK, such as the WS convoys, so I am not sure where you get the idea from that it was impossible.

Here is just one example - the SS Mariposa made two such voyages to the CBi from the USA in 1942/1943, the first via Freetown, Cape Town to Karachi, and the second via Rio and Aden. Details here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Mariposa

So far from being impossible, it was routine.

US air units usually ferried across the Atlantic by air, thence via the Middle East to India. So this was all "off map" as well. However we decided not to allow air units to fly to/from off-map bases. Perhaps we should consider allowing that though.

One thing I forgot to mention previously - when moving from off-map base to another off-map base, air and ground units do not need to be provided with ships. It is assumed that other ships, not otherwise represented in the game, perform this "off map transport" function. The units simply move to the other off-map base by a type of strategic movement. However for transport to/from the main map, real transport ships do need to be provided.

Andrew

[m10bob]

Andrew..........I have always been a fan of your maps, and the "expanded " maps in particular.

If I understand what I have read correctly, Allied units staging from the off map places will be visible to the Allied player, (but I don't think you use the "snail paths" ala RHS?

If this is correct, will putting a cursor over a convoy tell me how many days till it re-enters the map, or will I need to keep books?

Thank you.[&o]

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: pad152
The point is this, in AE Japan could take every base south of Japan, yet the allies can still sail to Australia and India without sailing anywhere near a Japanese base! If that isn't an advantage(cheating, gamey, etc, etc) to the allies what is?

[&:]

Is the world round, or not?

I really don't get this issue.

[undercovergeek]

ORIGINAL: pad152

The point is this, in AE Japan could take every base south of Japan, yet the allies can still sail to Australia and India without sailing anywhere near a Japanese base! If that isn't an advantage(cheating, gamey, etc, etc) to the allies what is?

but you can still hit them when they arrive on the west coast

[aciddrinker]

ORIGINAL: pad152

ORIGINAL: Fishbed

Man, what's the fuss about? First time I hear about a WITPer complaining about having too much... stuff?!

You had a bad day or what? Everyone thinks this makes the game richer, as an allied player you just have the same units, but this time at least you can deal with them sending them across the map without having to worry about a Japanese interception, send your assets where you need them... You don't need to involve yourself more than you'd do without them, and still you have access to dozens of new possibilities... Is that because they're nothing left to complain about that I see to see such pain ni the a** threads all over there or what?

The focus of the game should be on planing and conducting combat operations in the Pacific without having to worry about stuff in the Atlantic or anywhere else.

No1 force you to buy and play this game. You have allways choice.

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: pad152

ORIGINAL: rogueusmc

Could they have done it in real life?..I mean, gone the long way around?

This is a good question, I would say no for two reasons.

1. There were no bases/refueling stops in south Africa on the way to India/Australia, North Africa may have to have been taken first so southern bases could be securely built there to protect the shipping lanes. The US lost alot of shipping off the east coast of the US, the Atlantic was not a very save place for shipping in 1942.

2. US policy was suppose to be Europe first, yet by early 1943 we had more man/ships in the pacific than we had in Europe, our allies didn't like it, and I not sure we would have gotten away with it if we had to ship everything through the Atlantic. Even congress and senate where not fully aware of the build up in the pacific vs. Europe. There was still a real fear back then, Japan could invade the west coast of the US, which would have kept what was left of the pacific fleet on the west coast & Peal Harbor.

Cape Town and Durban were big and important ports even before the Pacific War began. The convoy route around the Cape was a true 'Highway of the Empire' for the British. And there was another essential convoy route from Fremantle to Cape Town (to transport goods, mainly cattle, from Australia to the UK).

[Andrew Brown]

ORIGINAL: m10bob
If I understand what I have read correctly, Allied units staging from the off map places will be visible to the Allied player, (but I don't think you use the "snail paths" ala RHS?

No snail paths [:)] There are "snail paths" drawn on the map edges, but they are for illustration only, to show which off-map areas and/or map edges connect to which.

If this is correct, will putting a cursor over a convoy tell me how many days till it re-enters the map, or will I need to keep books?

Now that is a good idea! I have added it to the feature request list. You don't need to keep books as the TF display gives the number of days before arrival, but having it in the mouseover would be a lot more convenient, I agree.

Andrew

[m10bob]

ORIGINAL: Andrew Brown

ORIGINAL: m10bob
If I understand what I have read correctly, Allied units staging from the off map places will be visible to the Allied player, (but I don't think you use the "snail paths" ala RHS?

No snail paths [:)] There are "snail paths" drawn on the map edges, but they are for illustration only, to show which off-map areas and/or map edges connect to which.

If this is correct, will putting a cursor over a convoy tell me how many days till it re-enters the map, or will I need to keep books?

Now that is a good idea! I have added it to the feature request list. You don't need to keep books as the TF display gives the number of days before arrival, but having it in the mouseover would be a lot more convenient, I agree.

Andrew

Thank you!..(After all these years, I have finally contributed something??)
Great minds think alike.[:)]

[rhohltjr]

Sorry if this has been answered before, but what about convoys running out of fuel during one of the
'round the world' cruises. Or an off map area to another off map area. ...at 1 hex a day that could extend
the transit time ...a lot....

Check that!!!

One thing I forgot to mention previously - when moving from off-map base to another off-map base, air and ground units do not need to be provided with ships. It is assumed that other ships, not otherwise represented in the game, perform this "off map transport" function. The units simply move to the other off-map base by a type of strategic movement. However for transport to/from the main map, real transport ships do need to be provided.

Andrew

No fuel is consumed for "strategic movement". Perhaps the shps making the transit do so in strategic mode as well? Perhaps they employ the world wide net of Allied tugboat owner operators and don't use any fuel????

[X(][X(][X(]

Will the Manual that we get with the release, contain an Addendum(pages), with any info not currently in the Manual???

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: rhohltjr
Perhaps they employ the world wide net of Allied tugboat owner operators and don't use any fuel????

There's unlimited fuel in the continental US and Aden/Karachi as it is. The Allies never suffer a global fuel shortage, therefore, they only suffer local shortages when they lack for tankers to ship it to a required location on map.

...so this hardly strikes me as all that relevant.

[rhohltjr]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: rhohltjr
Perhaps they employ the world wide net of Allied tugboat owner operators and don't use any fuel????

There's unlimited fuel in the continental US and Aden/Karachi as it is. The Allies never suffer a global fuel shortage, therefore, they only suffer local shortages when they lack for tankers to ship it to a required location on map.

...so this hardly strikes me as all that relevant.

Is Aden/Karachi available early on? If so why include Capetown? Since the question is still relevant to me, is it possible to run out of fuel during an off map transit or off map point to point... --> (yes/no) <--- ?

[SuluSea]

ORIGINAL: rhohltjr

Since the question is still relevant to me, is it possible to run out of fuel during an off map transit or off map point to point... --> (yes/no) <--- ?

This is answered on page 1 of this very same thread, post #24.

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: rhohltjr
Is Aden/Karachi available early on?

Well, my point is that at the westernmost (Aden or Karachi depending on mod) or easternmost (San Francisco) points of the map, the Allies have magical Oilwells of Infinite Fuel. WitP has never had such a thing as a shortage of fuel at the map edges - only in the middle bits, where the fightin' happens.

So really, if there is no shortage of fuel off map, this is hardly a new thing, it's 'no change'. The Allies never have and have never had to worry about global fuel shortages, they only have to worry about getting fuel to Noumea or Midway or wherever.

Oilwells of Infinite Fuel appearing in Capetown and Port Stanley don't make any difference to the status quo as far as fuel logistics are concerned.

If so why include Capetown?

I think it's a great idea to have an abstract whole world model, because it removes map edge issues. In WitP you could pin the entire British fleet at Karachi and sink the lot. In reality they would, and did, bugger off to Mombasa out of the IJN's reach.

Map edges are always an issue in wargames, I think this is the neatest way of resolving it I've ever seen.

As for the fuel thing I dunno, but as I said, it's irrelevant really, nothing has changed, status quo.

[Anthropoid]

ORIGINAL: jeffk3510

ORIGINAL: pad152

I played the CHS mod for WITP, and off map area for British forces coming into India made sense but, Panama didn't! I mean just have stuff show up on the west cost of the US/Canada a week later.

In the AE manual I see off map areas for the Soviet Union, Eastern Canada, Eastern US, Monbasa, Cap Town, Port Stanley, plus others. I just don't see the reason for most of these and forcing the player to moving troops, ships, supplies, etc. not only across the pacific but, also move them to/from all these other off map places seems like a bit. What the pacific map wasn't big enough, there wasn't enough already for the player to do? What is the purpose of these? What does this add to the game other than waste player time?

If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Best advice for a lot of you who are complaining when you haven't even played the game yet. And BTW, you're not 'debating' your complaining . . . nah, whining is more accurate.

NO game is perfect, and no game is ever gonna be perfect. But then perfection is the enemy of excellence. Any accurate simulation of variable X in a game, often involves a tradeoff in inaccuracy, or creating open loopholes for exploits in variables Y, Z and Q. The only solution often seems to be to abstract everything more, which obviously is not what WiTP or AE are about in the first place.

If the game had been out for a year, even six-months, and you had played it, and found that this stuff you are whining about was a game spoiler, or imblancer or whatever, then maybe you'd have some leg to stand on. Fact is, you're preemptively whining. Must be some kinda issues or agenda lurking there?

[Kereguelen]

ORIGINAL: EUBanana

ORIGINAL: rhohltjr
Perhaps they employ the world wide net of Allied tugboat owner operators and don't use any fuel????

There's unlimited fuel in the continental US and Aden/Karachi as it is. The Allies never suffer a global fuel shortage, therefore, they only suffer local shortages when they lack for tankers to ship it to a required location on map.

...so this hardly strikes me as all that relevant.

To clarify this: In the AE there is no unlimited fuel at either Aden or Karachi. Karachi does not generate any fuel or supplies (apart from the supplies produced by the industry located there). Aden receives only a low daily amount of supplies and fuel (but when the Mediterrean opens in 1943 it will get more).

Abadan and the Eastern USA are the big fuel sources in the game for the Allies. Fuel and supplies will automatically move to the West Coast via the railway network. But to make use of the fuel generated at Abadan you'll have to ship it to wherever you need it on the map.

Well, the off-map bases are quite easy to handle anyway. There is no need to worry about them. Wait and see!

[EUBanana]

ORIGINAL: Kereguelen
Abadan and the Eastern USA are the big fuel sources in the game for the Allies. Fuel and supplies will automatically move to the West Coast via the railway network. But to make use of the fuel generated at Abadan you'll have to ship it to wherever you need it on the map.

So in actual fact, logistics are slightly worse for the Allies than WitP models it, at least as far as the western map edge goes, as Abadan is even more remote from the likely front lines in Burma or India.

When Karachi was the font of goodness you didn't have to ship anything at all. Then it became Aden and you did have to ship a short distance. Now it's even further again.

[undercovergeek]

ORIGINAL: Anthropoid
Fact is, you're preemptively whining. Must be some kinda issues or agenda lurking there?

shhhh [8|]

[Andy Mac]

Yup until the Med opens supplies arriving in Capetown are vital