Pearl Harbor's Red Hill

[madflava13]

Don't buy it then and the rest of us who love UV can... If your one purchase is so important to Matrix then I'll buy two to make up for it and give it to a friend...

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by madflava13
Don't buy it then and the rest of us who love UV can... If your one purchase is so important to Matrix then I'll buy two to make up for it and give it to a friend...

Like I said, ignore exists. The forum exists to allow people
to express opinions about Matrix products. I intend to do just that. You will not dissuade me.

[Mike Scholl]

Red Hill is a pretty unique structure, qand probably outside
the basic nuts and bolts of the game design. But it does bring
up the subject of "protecting supplies/fuel" at bases from the
other sides efforts. With 60 mile hexes, there are around 3000
Sq miles in each. A lot of area, even if in many cases it's mostly
ocean. A lot of room to disperse, camoflage, dig-in, and other-
wise protect supply, fuel, ammo, and the like.

I've always thought two things were far too easy in UV. One
was search/reccon, which for the number of aircraft "invested"
gives extrordinary "returns". The other is destruction of
supply by various types of bombardment. While it's true that if
it's all stacked up on the beach being loaded/unloaded it's a
pretty tempting target. But once landed and "put away" it seems
to me it should be much less vulnerable. The Japanese lost a
lot of islands in the Pacific to assault---but aside from locations
like Guadalcanal where they had to build up under attack, I
can't remember them running out of supply or ammunition before
they ran out of soldiers to expend it.

In UV it seems as if a heavy and continuous bombardment
is able to blow away the supply before the Allies land. Has
anyone else noticed this? It seems to me to be a problem 2by3
needs to look at. What about in WITP? Playtesters?

[Snigbert]

So far I have heard NOTHING to indicate that it is anything other than a simple port.

If you admit that your insights into WitP engine are not based on any information you have received, perhaps it would be more tactful to ask questions to seek clarification rather than to accuse the game of shortcomings you don't know exist.

In UV it seems as if a heavy and continuous bombardment is able to blow away the supply before the Allies land. Has
anyone else noticed this? It seems to me to be a problem 2by3
needs to look at. What about in WITP? Playtesters?

I think the issue is being addressed, I seem to recall seeing a post in the development forum regarding base size vs damage inflicted by bombardment. If it isn't there I will bring it up.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by Snigbert
So far I have heard NOTHING to indicate that it is anything other than a simple port.

If you admit that your insights into WitP engine are not based on any information you have received, perhaps it would be more tactful to ask questions to seek clarification rather than to accuse the game of shortcomings you don't know exist.

In UV it seems as if a heavy and continuous bombardment is able to blow away the supply before the Allies land. Has
anyone else noticed this? It seems to me to be a problem 2by3
needs to look at. What about in WITP? Playtesters?

I think the issue is being addressed, I seem to recall seeing a post in the development forum regarding base size vs damage inflicted by bombardment. If it isn't there I will bring it up.

My original post was phrased as a question.
The question itself was ignored in the eagerness to attack me =)
It still has not been answered. By all means Sniggy go back and read it.

I was tactfull , but when attacked w/o provocation I do respond.
That is my nature =)

[Nikademus]

Originally posted by Snigbert
[
I think the issue is being addressed, I seem to recall seeing a post in the development forum regarding base size vs damage inflicted by bombardment. If it isn't there I will bring it up. [/B]

Guilty

Right now Ground casualties are being looked at Mike, even though again, (always again ) as we are in Alpha stage the primary goal at the moment is to get a working game with all the components, existing and added, running.

As such i believe when the time comes we may also see a reexamination of the effects of air and shore bombardment in relation to fort level and base size.

As always, no gurantees on any changes/mods but essentially its "on the list" for discussion.

[Mr.Frag]

I would like to see the survivability of AA guns looked into since you are checking this stuff. AA guns go to 100% disabled in 6 days of attacks...seems a little silly.

[TIMJOT]

Originally posted by Chiteng
So it took 9 months to build.....

1) "Considering that it WONT take anything like 9 months
to build a port from scratch and duplicate Pearl Harbor
in the game......"

2) "What then does that say about the games realism?"

Just curious.

3) "OR does Pearl Harbor get some enhanced utility that"
no other port gets?

Actually Chiteng, as you can see in your original post above, That the first part is written as a (negative) statement of fact. Even though it is just your opinion and is not based on any insite of WitP.

The second part is a question, but it assumes that the first part is a statement of fact, which it is not.

The third part is a legitimate question if it was not preceded by the previous "provocative" statement and if you did not imply as fact that no other port would have said utility. Something we do not know at this point.

I do not think anyone denies there is room for improvement in UV, but it has been stated many times that WitP would incorporate improvements on UV that then would be backfitted to UV after WitP is released.

So why all the negativity, for all we know WitP will make it possible to have many "Tassfronga's", have B-17s that cant hit anything on water and bases that take forever to build.

PS Please do not take this as a personal attack, as it is not meant to be. I agree with some of your positions, just not all the negativity that you tend to couch them with.

Regards

[Snigbert]

The question itself was ignored in the eagerness to attack me =)
It still has not been answered. By all means Sniggy go back and read it.

You're right, they were fair enough questions although in a somewhat negative bias. My responses below. If it seemed like I was eager to attack you I apologize, my only interest was in preventing the engine of WitP from being falsely besmirched and I may have over reacted. Which doesn't mean I have a problem with legitimate criticisms, I just want to make sure they are legitimate before I post anything on the development forum.


1) "Considering that it WONT take anything like 9 months to build a port from scratch and duplicate Pearl Harbor in the game......"

It will not be possible to build a port like Pearl Harbor from scratch during the duration of the game.



2) "What then does that say about the games realism?"

I think it is realistic, it would take quite some time to build up the kind of naval/air/manufacturing etc present at Pearl Harbor. I'm not sure...maybe if the US had committed a huge amount of resources to building a base similar to Pearl Harbor somewhere else in the Pacific which had the untapped potential to be such a large deep water port, friendly population availability, and all of the other benefits PH has, it could have been done within a few years. However, it will not be possible in game terms.



3) "OR does Pearl Harbor get some enhanced utility that no other port gets?"

Pearl Harbor does have enhanced utilities, however they are not unique to Pearl Harbor (except for the specified levels present at Pearl Harbor.) As mentioned above, these are things like Merchant and Naval Shipyards, Heavy Industry Manufacturing, Manpower, etc. Other locations will have these types of facilities, mostly in Japan, US West Coast, Australia, Pacific Rim, and such. These types of facilities can be bombed and repaired, but I dont think they can be built from scratch at new locations. Therefore, a location like Lunga can be turned into a large airfield and port, but would never be equivalent to Pearl Harbor.

[Raverdave]

Originally posted by Mike Scholl
The Japanese lost a
lot of islands in the Pacific to assault---but aside from locations
like Guadalcanal where they had to build up under attack, I
can't remember them running out of supply or ammunition before
they ran out of soldiers to expend it.

Rabal is one case where the Japanese were almost starved to death, this was due to a combination of lack of shipping to supply them ( mainly due to US subs successes in unrestricted warfare), and if and when ships did arrive they were caught in one of the air raids. Ammunition was also as a result another thing that was short in supply and for the same reasons as food. Rabal stands out as a large example, simply because I have read a lot of info about it, but the same was also true for much smaller Islands/bases. Starving men can't fight.
Also the in the Aleutians the Japanses were hampered by the lack of supply, once again to the point where it is questionable whether they even could fight.

[herbieh]

Not being able to build big ports in the entire course of the war seems very reasonable to me. The best example I can think of is Garden Island Naval base Sydney.

Massive effort begun in 1939? or early 40 to build a battleship capable drydock, in a very suitable spot, right at the heart of a nations industry, and not completed until early 1945, when BB KGV was docked as part of the UK pacific fleet.
It also already had repair facilities, but the expansion required to bring it to major fleet requirements was massive.
For the Aussies here, are you aware that there used to be, and still is (for some) complete tunnels from GI under the harbour to MHQ at the cross and to the city, and that GI is like a rabbit warren underneath?, all dug during the war.
Rumour(please note,rumour only) has a tunnel to watson (north head )as well
Ive been in one of the shorter ones under the island.
(they are very scary tunnels too!!!:D

[madflava13]

Raverdave,
Don't forget Truk/Wewak/any other bases the Allies bypassed...

Herbieh,
I've not heard of those tunnels. If you have some more info, I'd love it if you started a different topic on them - I admit I'm still learning as I go when it comes to the Aussie effort in WW2 - too much U.S. publishing in my life!

Regards,
Chris

[babyseal7]

"but aside from locations like Guadalcanal where they had to build up under attack, I can't remember them running out of supply or ammunition before they ran out of soldiers to expend it."

The true effect of the lack of supply isn't in what they got, but what they didn't get. To generalize, in most cases of island assaults the real effect of a lack of supply wasn't beans and bullets, but the lack of heavy weapons, construction equipment, cement, structural steel, wire, ect. used to fortify those positions. If you look at some of the manifests of ships sunk in-route to these islands, you'll see that things could POSSIBLY have been much, much, MUCH different had those islands been fortified as the Japanese intended. Many (most) of them were very close things...in spite of the fact that the Japanese were forced to do some serious improvising. Had the islands been fortified better, it's very doubtful the Allies/US would have been willing/able to pay the blood price needed to do the job.

"In UV it seems as if a heavy and continuous bombardment is able to blow away the supply before the Allies land. Has anyone else noticed this?"

Yup. Goes with bombardment and air attack as well...I've been to places in the Pacific where almost 60 years later it still looks like a lunar landscape, yet the Japanese still fought there effectively. The only time Japanese units suffered from a lack of supply was in overland attacks (NG, GC, ect.), bases left to "wither", and a temporary lack of supply to frontline combat units that happens to EVERY army (which did happen to the IJA more often due to their sorry Log tail capabilities).

You want a game that'd be worth playing? Give me, as the Japanese player, the opportunity and tools to straighten out the Japanese logistics situation to the point they historically could have...build ASW capability and assets...dedicate some resources to giving my transportation units some heavy load/unloading equipment...put better cargo handling gear on my ships...give me the engineer equipment they had historically. Unfortunately, in these games, you're always forced to fight the war with the same handicaps they did historically...the Japanese didn't lose the war at the front-lines, they lost it at the home islands/GHQ. Until some attention is given to logistics and support functions, the Japanese player is always going to be playing a game where he's just moving counters around, and being forced to execute the failed policies of some dead Jap guys who croaked out 60 years ago.

[VicKevlar]

@Chiteng....knock off the inane trolling. Keep it in the AOW forum. I am most able to "define your actions". Got it?

@Rest.....if you wish to trade flames.....the AOW forum is a good place for it. Otherwise, don't bother.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Chiteng]

Originally posted by VicKevlar
@Chiteng....knock off the inane trolling. Keep it in the AOW forum. I am most able to "define your actions". Got it?

@Rest.....if you wish to trade flames.....the AOW forum is a good place for it. Otherwise, don't bother.

Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

So you are saying that a poster can attack me and I cannot
defend myself? I think I will require a specific ruling on that.

[Mike Scholl]

While the point of my comment was that I really didn't want
to see something like the Iwo Jima Garrison blown out of exist-
ance before the Marines landed, or unable to make the valiant
struggle that has left both nations with pride in the efforts of
thier forces, I must disagree with one of your statements. In
truth, the Japanese lost the war the day they decided to start
it.

I've pressed myself for a variant which assumed that the
Japanese equivalent of an "Albert Speer" took direction of their
economy in 1936, and where idiotic infighting among the two
services didn't exist. Something that would give the players
a more capable and better prepared Japan to fight with. I've
always felt that a more "even" fight would be more interesting
to play for both sides. But as long as the Japanese choose to
go to War with America, they will be totally out-classed and out-
gunned in the end. A more sensible and better thought out
preparation of their Economy for war would certainly have been
possible---but it could only make better use of what was there.
They are still taking on the world's greatest industrial and econ-
omic power. Taken by value of goods produced (about the only
way of measuring the relative value of the apples and oranges,
grapes, pears, watermelons and such which make up war pro-
duction), Japan barely out-produced General Motors during the
war---and General Motors had to totally re-tool just to get into
war production. At bottom, they are still just a good and plucky
"fly-weight" stepping into the ring with the heavyweight champion
of the world. They may get in some "shots", but enevitably they
will get their heads handed to them.

My earlier point was that I wanted to see the Japanese able
to put up the kind of "last-ditch" defenses they did historically in
the game as well. And that I didn't think the UV bombardment
results system was going to be able to model that. But if you
want to mount a campaign for the inclusion of a "Hirohito's Wet
Dream Scenario" in the game, I'll be right there beside you to
help make the plea. But even the best of co-operation and plan-
ning can only improve their situation. Remember..., Japan was
an ISLAND Empire that began WWII owning only 60% of the ship-
ping it needed for it's own PRE-WAR Economy! Shortfalls like that
(and the Japanese had a lot of them) can't be totally overcome
with only rationalization of production. And if you want to give
Japan the resources, industrial and technology base, and the
managerial potential of the United States; then you will have to
call it "Fantasy in the Andromeda Galaxy". It isn't possible in the
1940's on this Earth.

[madflava13]

Mike- I agree with you whole-heartedly... I prefer straight historical scenarios generally ( I love to see how I match up against history's greats), but the "What-If" scenarios are also a lot of fun. It's easier to model what-ifs for Europe though, because the outcome was much more in doubt. I agree with your statement that Japan was doomed the minute the first shot was fired... Yamamoto said this best. Unfortunately, we're talking about game design. There's no game that will model this conflict so accurately that doesn't guarantee an Allied victory in the end. America simply out produced Japan, and there's no way to cure that to make the game even.

This is why I think auto-victory conditions are vital. Japan cannot win a straight out war with America. Under certain conditions though, victory could be possible...

That's my $.02... Let's hear otherwise boys.

PS- This forum's the most informed an intelligent I've been with...

[Snigbert]

Another option is gradual increases in victory points awarded to Japan for Allied losses as the war progresses. Something like:

41-42 = 100% VP Award for Allied Losses
43-44 = 150% VP Award for Allied Losses
45-End = 200% VP Award for Allied Losses

That could help compensate for the increased difficulty in getting kills for the Japanese as the war goes on...


Fortunately the Grand Campaign scenarios are going to be the only ones affected as badly by the 'overwhelming US production', but smaller or regional scenarios can be played where things will be more balanced. It's the scenarios that go to 44-45 where things will get really frustrating for Japan.

I agree auto-victory conditions should be included as well, but they should be optional. Some people will want to go with ultimate realism, and wont be convinced that an auto-victory condition would really win the war...What do you folks think would have been 'amazing' enough victories for the Allies to have sued for peace? Taking India? Hawaii? Australia? West Coast? They will all be more or less impossible, but I think those events would be huge enough for an auto-victory. Since the scale of the game is increased so much, you cant justify capturing Noumea before January '43 would put an end to the war like it does in UV.

What about the idea of mini-missions, similar to what they had in PTO II. Every month, 3 months or 6 months the AI assigns you a primary, secondary and tertiary goal and if at the end of that time period those goals have been met, you receive bonus victory points. These goals would of course be much more difficult for the Allied player to achieve. An example, the Japanese player at the start of the grand campaign gets the following 6 month goals: Primary- Sink X number of American Ships at PH Secondary - Occupy the Phillipines Tertiary - Occupy Singapore
At the end of 6 months the AI evaluates if the goals have been met and awards extra vps. The Allied player at the same time gets the following 6 month goals: Primary - Hold Phillipines Secondary - Hold Wake Island Tertiary - Hold Singapore

Just some ideas that were bouncing around in my head, these aren't anything that are in development right now as far as I know.

[madflava13]

I'd personally prefer the sliding points scale you mentioned Snigbert. That way I can still do what I want as an Allied commander, but I am pressured to do something lest I lose on points for stalling...

[Snigbert]

I think the different ideas each have their merits, which would why they would be good options. I wouldn't neccessarily like having 'high command' give me orders or priorities, but it is realistic that a commander like Yamamoto or Nimitz would have to bow to political pressures.

Also if they were options you could have combinations...such as auto-victory on, sliding vp awards on, AI assigned missions off