ORIGINAL: treespider
ORIGINAL: Nikademus
ORIGINAL: Historiker
Sure. But it forces the Jap player to take unnecessary risks. Whether forcing the Jap player to do so because of an engine exploit has to be decided by the two players.
This is what i meant by using Reverse tactics. Yes, Player one can counter the gambit but only by using equally unrealistic (and risky) tactics. Thus the game rewards lunging and grabbing vital turf first before the other can move in and entrench. When Joe and I tried to use conventional military tactics (advance under air and sea cover with proper logistical/base support, we found fortresses like Palembang waiting for us. (the other big one was in the two Mtn hexsides of Java where our opponents had moved every single Dutch unit abandoning the ports, airfields and cities) Simiar situation in NG. We refused to "lunge" or use risky tactics that in the real world would have been insane (and largely unsupportable) It was an eye opening experience.
I'm more convinced than ever that Grigsby was smarter than alot of gamers give him credit for.
put another way....an example would be the in real life you advance from a logistical strongpoint and advance along careful lines, preferably under air and sea cover. This is what the Japanese did in their first operational phase within reason. They didn't try leapfrogging Malaya and going to Burma or Sumatra....or skip Kendari and Timor and invade Java. In the game...the most rewarding tactic is to attack the fringes first and work your way back to your support base. It becomes a race. This is not realistic.....but it works, and in cases like Palembang, thats really the only good way i can see Player one defeating this gambit.
This thread has two arguments and people are generally talking past each other...
In one camp you have -
- "Its a game...the game allows it...so be it....figure out away around it....afterall the game allows other situations that I have to deal with."
In the other camp you have -
- "It should be a simulation and this should not happen in a realistic environment"
Both camps are correct...
I fall in the simulation camp myself. IMO almost all of this stems from the "Supply Point = Everything....just add water and stir" logistics model that exists in the game.
IRL logistically it would have been nearly impossible to stockpile the supplies that would have been necessary to support a large army in a place like Palembang or the mountain redoubt of Java.
If the supply points were broken down into what they actually represent, after setting aside the food water and ammunition a bunch of the "supply" points would disappear creating a much smaller available pool of supplies available for survival and combat which are needed in siege situations.
However because of the "Add water and stir" nature of the logistics model the 7000 tons of ready mix concrete that the engineers were using to build pill boxes the week before are automagically converted into bullets or hardtack the minut the units are cut off and have to fight.
-------
The other thing that the "game" fails to address and many games do not, is the civilian equation.
We as players do not have to concern ourselves with protracted sieges in Singapore or Batavia and the thousands of civilian deaths that would have resulted. Unlike our real life counter-parts...who factored that into their equation and decision to capitulate as quickly as they did.
Building from this...
In an ideal world, the games HI and LI would produce a number of supply points that would then convert into other categories at different conversion levels.
IE:
1 Supply Points = 1 Ammunition point
2 Supply Points = 1 Food point
3 Supply Points = 1 AvGas point
4 Supply points = 1 Spare Parts
5 Supply Points = 1 Construction Materials
10 Supply points = 1 'Replacement'
etc
And of course each unit, ship or plane consumes those points at a rate of whatever is needed. The supply is produced, then used up by other factories to make the goodies. Examples:
Ammo Factory makes ammo
Barracks make replacement troops
Refinery makes AvGas
Cannery makes food
Machine shops make spares
Mills make construction Materials
Etc
For example, to rebuild an infantry unit each squad, gun or tank you replace uses up 1 replacement point. If an infantry unit requires 1000 ammunition to be at full supply, and it is at 200, then it pulls 800 ammunition points from the base to replace its ammo, etc.
What it means is a lot more logistics, and a lot more micromanagement, but it would easily prevent an easy 'Fortress Palembang' situation, as the Refinery makes plenty of AvGas, but no bullets to fight with and no food to eat. it would also slow down the tempo of the Japanese player, as he would actually have to carefully plan to have enough of the necessary supplies moved forward. If you have plenty of bullets but no food, you still won't win.





