Why all of the off map areas?

[Charbroiled]

I do not like off-map bases
I do not like those added places

I do not like ships getting away
I can not bomb ships that go that way

I don’t care if it is real
It ruins my plans, that’s the deal

I will not like them, I know it’s true
I will let you know until I’m blue

Panama, Port Stanley and Cape Town
I don’t like unit going the long way around

I do not like them, they seem unfair
I do not like them anywhere

I do not like them, I’m not a fan
I do not like them, Sam-I-am

(sorry Dr. Suess, wherever you are)[:D]

[pad152]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson



Which of these are incorrect (around the world = off map movement, one off map base to another)?

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement no refueling required).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world (strategic movement doesn't require ships for air groups)
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

Right, I've asked the rest of the AE team to get back to work. I'd be happy to answer any remaining questions about the off map areas.

At a high level, they were added to control off map movement. In fact, I take the "blame" for putting them in. [:)]. Now Andrew might want to fight me over the blame - he probably wanted to do it too. But I know why I wanted to do it. Basically I got the idea from the original WITP game. And since most of you probably have not been around long enough to remember that game - I'll briefly describe it. This game - called WITP (War in the Pacific) came out in 1978 (IIRC). It was 60 mile hexes, divisional scale (with regiments), 10 plane "air points" individual ships down to cruiser, pairs for DD, etc. But this was a huge game - and had full production system on both sides - etc. Obviously one of the inspirations for the 2by3/Matrix edition over 20 years later.

So, this game did have off map areas. This system permitted control over transfer of assets from the Indian Ocean to the Eastern Pacific. It was an abstract system. Each off map holding box was connected to the map and many of the offmap boxes were connected to each other by a series of "places". So between the "Africa" holding box and the "England" holding box was a certain number of places. Each item moving between these holding boxes moved a certain number of places per turn - depending on the speed of the item. No fuel was required, no escorts were required, hecque no ships were required for moving planes or troops. And the needed stuff was assumed to be supplied by the offmap infrastructure.

So "why all of the off map areas" well because I thought the original WITP modelling was good enough that we should copy that idea. So we did. It is actually pretty hard to do something totally original in game design - so often we just use ideas we've seen before - so the off map holding areas - and the abilities to move things between them was an idea we stole - and added to the game for improve the modeling of moving things around - off map.

If there are further questions - please ask away!
[:)]

I already stated I have no issues with stuff coming/going to the UK off map.

Which of these are incorrect (around the world = off map movement, one off map base to another on the other side of the map)?

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement no refueling required).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world (strategic movement doesn't require ships for air groups)
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

6. Please tell me why this off-map movement can't be exploited by the allied player? Like the Allied player attacking from the Atlantic (sail the pacific fleet risk free no refuel required, around the world).

7. The off map movement gives the allied player free movement by passing ALL Japanese bases, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so how is this not a big advantage to the allied player?

8. I don't understand reducing allied shipping in the pacific only to give them a free ride (no ships required for troop/air groups, no refueling) in the Atlantic?



Thanks

[bradfordkay]

6. Please tell me why this off-map movement can't be exploited by the allied player? Like the Allied player attacking from the Atlantic (sail the pacific fleet risk free no refuel required, around the world).

The time it will take for the allied player to move his forces from the US west coast to South Africa is free time for the Japanese player to attack from a position of superiority. Thus, this is not a "free move".

7. The off map movement gives the allied player free movement by passing ALL Japanese bases, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so how is this not a big advantage to the allied player?

Tell me what bases the Japanese had in the South Atlantic or the Mediterranean Sea. I'm interested to know what bases you are referring to...

8. I don't understand reducing allied shipping in the pacific only to give them a free ride (no ships required for troop/air groups, no refueling) in the Atlantic?

As previously pointed out, the ships involved are above and beyond the ships available in the Pacific. These are vessels that were not in the Pacific, so there should be no argument here.

[HMS Resolution]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson
And since most of you probably have not been around long enough to remember that game - I'll briefly describe it. This game - called WITP (War in the Pacific) came out in 1978 (IIRC). It was 60 mile hexes, divisional scale (with regiments), 10 plane "air points" individual ships down to cruiser, pairs for DD, etc. But this was a huge game - and had full production system on both sides - etc. Obviously one of the inspirations for the 2by3/Matrix edition over 20 years later.

Hey now, I own the even bigger reprint from Decision Games.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: pad152

I already stated I have no issues with stuff coming/going to the UK off map.

Which of these are incorrect (around the world = off map movement, one off map base to another on the other side of the map)?

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement no refueling required).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world (strategic movement doesn't require ships for air groups)
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

6. Please tell me why this off-map movement can't be exploited by the allied player? Like the Allied player attacking from the Atlantic (sail the pacific fleet risk free no refuel required, around the world).

7. The off map movement gives the allied player free movement by passing ALL Japanese bases, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so how is this not a big advantage to the allied player?

8. I don't understand reducing allied shipping in the pacific only to give them a free ride (no ships required for troop/air groups, no refueling) in the Atlantic?



Thanks

Pad - the "art" or "science" (it is probably both) of simulation design - primarily involves trade-offs in deciding what to model "more abstractly" and what to model "less abstractly". This is the fundamental prioritization process we go through when we design a semi-conductor manufacturing tool simulation (which I do in my day job) or a computer historical war game (such as WITP/AE).

So - the off map areas were designed to model movement by the allies on areas not covered explicitly by the map in the game. This is done very abstractly in WITP - it is done slightly less abstractly in AE. I believe, on balance, that the slightly less abstract modeling in AE is more realistic.

It may be that you disagree - and that is fine - disagreements over what should be modeled more abstractly and what should be modeled less abstractly basically sum up 90% of the debates we have on the AE Team - so it would not be unusual to have such a disagreement. I am fine with that. Hopefully you are as well.
[:)]

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: HMS Resolution
Hey now, I own the even bigger reprint from Decision Games.

Yeah, me too but without the supply system - it is hardly the same. I miss my "Logistics In the Pacific" !!!
[:D]

[pad152]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: pad152

I already stated I have no issues with stuff coming/going to the UK off map.

Which of these are incorrect (around the world = off map movement, one off map base to another on the other side of the map)?

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement no refueling required).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world (strategic movement doesn't require ships for air groups)
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

6. Please tell me why this off-map movement can't be exploited by the allied player? Like the Allied player attacking from the Atlantic (sail the pacific fleet risk free no refuel required, around the world).

7. The off map movement gives the allied player free movement by passing ALL Japanese bases, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so how is this not a big advantage to the allied player?

8. I don't understand reducing allied shipping in the pacific only to give them a free ride (no ships required for troop/air groups, no refueling) in the Atlantic?



Thanks

Pad - the "art" or "science" (it is probably both) of simulation design - primarily involves trade-offs in deciding what to model "more abstractly" and what to model "less abstractly". This is the fundamental prioritization process we go through when we design a semi-conductor manufacturing tool simulation (which I do in my day job) or a computer historical war game (such as WITP/AE).

So - the off map areas were designed to model movement by the allies on areas not covered explicitly by the map in the game. This is done very abstractly in WITP - it is done slightly less abstractly in AE. I believe, on balance, that the slightly less abstract modeling in AE is more realistic.

It may be that you disagree - and that is fine - disagreements over what should be modeled more abstractly and what should be modeled less abstractly basically sum up 90% of the debates we have on the AE Team - so it would not be unusual to have such a disagreement. I am fine with that. Hopefully you are as well.
[:)]

Is there some reason no one on the development team can't answer the questions posted?

[Charbroiled]

ORIGINAL: pad152

Which of these are incorrect (around the world = off map movement, one off map base to another on the other side of the map)?

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement no refueling required).

Incorrect. They are using fuel that was never used in the Pacific so the fuel is not represented on-board. Off-board fuel.

2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).

Incorrect. They are using ships that were never used in the Pacific so the ships are not represented on-board. Off-board shipping.

3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world (strategic movement doesn't require ships for air groups)

Incorrect. They are using ships that were never used in the Pacific so the ships are not represented on-board. Off-board shipping.

4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.

Realistically, nothing could be attacked by the Japanese in the Atlantic....and short a a few hurricanes and/or possibly a German U-boat, the chance of loss was slim.

5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

Incorrect. They are using escorts that were never used in the Pacific so the escorts are not represented on-board. Off-board shipping.

6. Please tell me why this off-map movement can't be exploited by the allied player? Like the Allied player attacking from the Atlantic (sail the pacific fleet risk free no refuel required, around the world).

This could have been done realistically, but, as in real life, the time required may be a deterrent. As the designers have already said, the time that it takes for this off-board movement has been modeled.

7. The off map movement gives the allied player free movement by passing ALL Japanese bases, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so how is this not a big advantage to the allied player?

So what, this is realistic. The Japanese could not attack anything in the Atlantic.

8. I don't understand reducing allied shipping in the pacific only to give them a free ride (no ships required for troop/air groups, no refueling) in the Atlantic?

The ships involved were never in the Pacific, therefore they can not be used In-game. These are Off-board resources.

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: pad152

Is there some reason no one on the development team can't answer the questions posted?

I am on the development team. I am the leader of the development team. I have answered and will continue to answer!
[:)]

[pad152]

ORIGINAL: jwilkerson

ORIGINAL: pad152

Is there some reason no one on the development team can't answer the questions posted?

I am on the development team. I am the leader of the development team. I have answered and will continue to answer!
[:)]

Can you then please answer the following questions?

I already stated I have no issues with stuff coming/going to the UK off map.

Which of these are incorrect (around the world = off map movement, one off map base to another on the other side of the map)?

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement no refueling required).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world (strategic movement doesn't require ships for air groups)
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

6. Please tell me why this off-map movement can't be exploited by the allied player? Like the Allied player attacking from the Atlantic (sail the pacific fleet risk free no refuel required, around the world).

7. The off map movement gives the allied player free movement by passing ALL Japanese bases IN THE PACIFIC, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so how is this not a big advantage to the allied player?

8. I don't understand reducing allied shipping in the pacific only to give them a free ride (no ships required for troop/air groups, no refueling) when shipping them in the Atlantic?

[madflava13]

Isnt the definition of insanity something like "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"?

[TheTomDude]

Let's see if he can make it to 10 pages with the same questions over and over and over again. [8|]
Put question -> ignore answers -> copy /paste questions -> ignore answers -> copy /paste questions ->ignore answers -> copy /paste questions ...

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: pad152

Can you then please answer the following questions?

I already stated I have no issues with stuff coming/going to the UK off map.

Which of these are incorrect (around the world = off map movement, one off map base to another on the other side of the map)?

1. No fuel required to move ships around the world(ships during off map movement no refueling required).
2. No Ships needed to move troops around the world(strategic movement doesn't require ships for moving troops).
3. No ships needed to move air groups around the world (strategic movement doesn't require ships for air groups).
4. Nothing can be attacked or lost moving around the world.
5. No Escorts required when moving ships around the world.

6. Please tell me why this off-map movement can't be exploited by the allied player? Like the Allied player attacking from the Atlantic (sail the pacific fleet risk free no refuel required, around the world).

7. The off map movement gives the allied player free movement by passing ALL Japanese bases IN THE PACIFIC, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so how is this not a big advantage to the allied player?

8. I don't understand reducing allied shipping in the pacific only to give them a free ride (no ships required for troop/air groups, no refueling) when shipping them in the Atlantic?

Yeah I think we're going round and round here. I have answered these questions. But I will summarize my answer in case you missed it.

The off map areas are in the game - because I wanted them in the game.

The answer to the other questions is that all these items are part of the abstraction of the off map movement system. We do not further simulate the off map movement system. It's purpose is to slightly reduce the abstraction in WITP and better model off map movement. I think it does a better job than the old system.

[spence]

Here is a game that was originally predicated on the idea that 2/3rds of everything in the Allied inventory was off the map and someone wonders why there is a bunch of stuff off the map.[&:]

[kfmiller41]

I have never in my life seen a more stubborn person[&o]
I am assuming that the exploit you seem to be concerned about is an allied player taking many division and a substantial part of the US Navy and moving them into the Indian ocean using the free move (as you call it) and attacking from there. If an allied player wished to move that much manpower and shipping and is willing to lose it for at a minimum 60 days and give the Japanese player that much more time and opportunity to dig in or advance I see no problem with it. If the Japanese player realizes that the Pacific fleet is mostly inactive due to being off map it would get very bad for the allied player. I cannot honestly see why any allied player (who probably cannot spare the forces being gone in the first place) would do that but if they wanted to it seems reasonable that they could.  They could have in real life, as the allies had global supremacy on the high seas for the most part. I think the system will work very well, I have used in in boardgames before and it seems to make the game more realistic IMHO[:D]

[HMS Resolution]

ORIGINAL: pad152
7. The off map movement gives the allied player free movement by passing ALL Japanese bases IN THE PACIFIC, free of enemy attack. Every thing the Japanese player puts to sea is at risk (on free rides), so how is this not a big advantage to the allied player?

Well, war is like that sometimes. Especially when a regional power goes up against a global power.

[DrewMatrix]

The off map areas are in the game - because I wanted them in the game.

And I am really glad you figured out a way to add them. This seems not only to allow a reasonable way to handle shifing resources from one side of the map to the other (on what is really a round globe, not a flat computer screen) but I gather in addition you made the "east map edge" more realistic, not a single on-map hex with limitless supply as I understand it.

Thanks!

[Enforcer]

Off Map Areas SHOULD be able to be attacked and captured!!

[Splinterhead]

Pad,

If I understand the (many,many) answers given by the developers, your concern about the allied player moving forces offmap from the west coast to CBI is unlikely because there is insufficient supply in the British sector to support additional forces. The allied player would have to transport supply from the US side and he would have to use ships to transport supplies for his expeditionary forces and more ships to bring more supplies to maintain operations. The supply, unlike the forces doesn't auto move, if I understand correctly.

If this is true, any US expeditionary force of relevant size would quickly become unsustainable because the player would run out of cargo vessels.

[TalonCG2]

[&:]

This guy can't be for real. He has to just be a forum troll looking to make trouble and aggravate people.

Every question (in all of their multiple forms asking the same thing over and over) he has asked has been answered and explained left right and sideways.

If I wind up playing as the Japanese in AE, I hope the allied player does choose to move a large portion of his forces "off map" the long way around. Each unit he decides to send that way will be out of my hair for 60 days or more! How is that an advantage to the allied player? The unit will be safer, but it will be gone, untouchable by the allied player for a much longer period of time. It's a trade off.

I just can't wrap my head around his fixation on this issue. It's like a car wreck. You don't want to see it, but you can't look away.[8|]