Isnt it a bit silly when......

[Chiteng]

See even when I abstain from posting, you guys keep fighting =)


Ok - it is silly that(and you can easily test this)
If you simply run the game as both sides........
The US reinforcements in Nomea will start to attrit because there isnt enough
support. Try it.

Now...isnt that silly?

[Snigbert]

Yes, it's almost as though troops require a certain amount of support to sustain themselves. It's like Bizarro World.

[Tristanjohn]

Yes, it's almost as though troops require a certain amount of support to sustain themselves. It's like Bizarro World.

I don't know but I think Chiteng's point was that American troops didn't attrit very much and in fact many of them in rear areas lived high off the hog. Support is one thing the Allies in general had plenty of and a commodity which UV does not provide them with in historical abundance.

If I had to guess I'd say this was a "gamey" method to keep UV "interesting" to both players as they scrambled to make sure each and every base had just enough support points to make it through the day. In fact I'm sure of it.

And the word for that is . . .


[center]. . . silly.[/center]

[mogami]

Hi, What is really silly is when one person posts something in error and then another person without first looking explains it as a silly gamey thing.

To begin with. Using scenario 17. Only 1 SWPAC base is below required support (Cooktown) However several hundred excess support are available at Brisbane.

In SOPAC 3 bases with engineer only units are short by a combined total of under 100 and there exists a surplus of around 140. And this is before the HQ for the Americal Div is even on the map! (Once that HQ arrives there is no shortage of support for US player.

US units do not 'attrit' in Noumea. All units start in perfect health so if 1 out of 81 sqds shows (1) that does not mean the unit is suffering from lack of support.

Before such statements can be issued the testers need to set the game to historical arrival. Also it is unwise to use a short term condition to define long term gamey intended devices.

I'll let one of these two post a poll asking if support is an issue for the allied player.

[Chiteng]

Hi, What is really silly is when one person posts something in error and then another person without first looking explains it as a silly gamey thing.

To begin with. Using scenario 17. Only 1 SWPAC base is below required support (Cooktown) However several hundred excess support are available at Brisbane.

In SOPAC 3 bases with engineer only units are short by a combined total of under 100 and there exists a surplus of around 140. And this is before the HQ for the Americal Div is even on the map! (Once that HQ arrives there is no shortage of support for US player.

US units do not 'attrit' in Noumea. All units start in perfect health so if 1 out of 81 sqds shows (1) that does not mean the unit is suffering from lack of support.

Before such statements can be issued the testers need to set the game to historical arrival. Also it is unwise to use a short term condition to define long term gamey intended devices.

I'll let one of these two post a poll asking if support is an issue for the allied player.

The operable word was 'start' I didnt say 'at the start'
Now play both sides and do nothing
Eventually the reinforcements at Noumea will outstrip their support.
Oddly enough when they do that...they start to attrit.
I think that is silly.

[mogami]

Hi, Is that with historical arrival settings? What scenario? By attrit do you mean die or break? I think the period the US is at it's lowest support is after all the seabee units arrive but before the Corps HQ arrive.

If this was a game balance/Japanese bias the Japanese would have equal support. If you think the USA attrits at Noumea what happens to Japanese at Truk? USA baseforce have on avg 30 surplus support points. There are many more Allied base force compared to Japanese (each allied base force can support a seabee unit.

Total number of HQ per side 25 Japanese 29 Allied. Many Japanese HQ are just large enough for the Bde they command (no excess) The Allies have 2 large HQ
(SOPAC and SWPAC) The only unsupported units for Allies are Seabee.

The Japanese are short of support compared to US level. Units with enough support (or surplus) still suffer breakdowns. But their repair rate usally prevents them from losing effectivness. (Compare to Japanese units deployed at Lunga with excess support) So not only do Allies have more support. What they have works better. (To test send force to Lunga with excess support and compare breakdown/loss rate to Japanese)

The Japanese controled the quinine production areas and US/Allied troops believed their malaria tabs made them impotent. I don't think this is reflected in game.

[Chiteng]

Hi, Is that with historical arrival settings? What scenario? By attrit do you mean die or break? I think the period the US is at it's lowest support is after all the seabee units arrive but before the Corps HQ arrive.

If this was a game balance/Japanese bias the Japanese would have equal support. If you think the USA attrits at Noumea what happens to Japanese at Truk? USA baseforce have on avg 30 surplus support points. There are many more Allied base force compared to Japanese (each allied base force can support a seabee unit.

Total number of HQ per side 25 Japanese 29 Allied. Many Japanese HQ are just large enough for the Bde they command (no excess) The Allies have 2 large HQ
(SOPAC and SWPAC) The only unsupported units for Allies are Seabee.

The Japanese are short of support compared to US level. Units with enough support (or surplus) still suffer breakdowns. But their repair rate usally prevents them from losing effectivness. (Compare to Japanese units deployed at Lunga with excess support) So not only do Allies have more support. What they have works better. (To test send force to Lunga with excess support and compare breakdown/loss rate to Japanese)

The Japanese controled the quinine production areas and US/Allied troops believed their malaria tabs made them impotent. I don't think this is reflected in game.

I didnt say anything about the Japs but I can tell you that I have had the attrit at Truk as well

However, I never simply piled on the units at Truk.
I have at Nomea

[mogami]

Hi, Chit can you post a few examples of the level of attrition.

[Tristanjohn]

Hi, What is really silly is when one person posts something in error and then another person without first looking explains it as a silly gamey thing.

It has not been demonstrated that Chiteng posted anything in error.

To begin with. Using scenario 17. Only 1 SWPAC base is below required support (Cooktown) However several hundred excess support are available at Brisbane.

Perfect example to illustrate the principle of Chiteng's point, only more so still.

Now I'm not sure exactly what Gary's doing (what the formula is) inside the model with regard to support points ((SP) as these actually affect units stationed at bases, but just to look at it casually, that is to say with common sense, does it strike you as reasonable that these military assets would require the same kind and amount of SP when stationed on the mainland of Australia as they would when stationed somehwere out in the maleria-infested hinterland of the combat zone? Does attrition even come into play for units up in Queensland? If so, is it less than for Allied units stationed on, say, Port Moresby?

In SOPAC 3 bases with engineer only units are short by a combined total of under 100 and there exists a surplus of around 140. And this is before the HQ for the Americal Div is even on the map! (Once that HQ arrives there is no shortage of support for US player.

What I note is that 1) the amount of Allied support in the aggregate seems small, 2) SP take hits on a consistent basis when a base it's stationed on is subjected to naval and air attack. While I find the latter game dynamic to be useful to simulate the many and various problems which presented themselves as the Allies initially established enemy-contested forward bases in an endemically unhealthy environment, the problem can arise soon enough that not enough SP remain behind in rear areas with which the Allies can readily make good this SP attrition.

And my point was if there is one thing the Allies had in abundance it was SP. (In fact the Allies enjoyed a superfulous of most war needs, even early on, and it was really just a question of getting this stuff forward in a timely manner.)

This issue (at times an actual problem to be solved) of moving various war materiel and personnel forward in a timely manner to the point of attack is somewhat aggravated by Gary's refusal to date to install a new, more finely-articulated, routine for the loading and off-loading of ships.

Do you understand me so far, Mogami?

US units do not 'attrit' in Noumea. All units start in perfect health so if 1 out of 81 sqds shows (1) that does not mean the unit is suffering from lack of support.

I don't think I've suffered from attrition as I'm careful to keep my units forward properly sustained with SP. But again, the model shows the Allies with just a little more SP than is needed whereas the truth is the Allies had more "support" than they could have possibly used in any number of wars.

Before such statements can be issued the testers need to set the game to historical arrival. Also it is unwise to use a short term condition to define long term gamey intended devices.

I'll let one of these two post a poll asking if support is an issue for the allied player.

In fact I'm not sure it is, as I've already stated. But on the other hand SP allocation for the Allies is not handled very well. If Gary wished to model this more correctly he'd be better off to define at the start SP as a much less generic thing in nature so that the Allied player would need to plan more carefully what sort of SP he planned to ship from the States and in what quantity and so forth (e.g., 150 air SP for that new base we're planning on Munda, another 100 naval SP for the port we're going to open up next door to Munda, 150 more infantry SP to properly supply all the land units to be stationed there within the next three months, and so forth), always with an eye to keeping his combat units sufficiently supported with with the right war materiel and personnel. As it actually stands within the system SP is so watered down it's quite possible for the Allies at least to support an infantry division, say, with several extra air-support units.

And that comes very close to my definition of (roll the drum please): dumb.

Or, to echo Chiteng, silly.

By the way, this gross fudging makes life easier for the Allies, not more difficult, so if the developers have intent to employ SP as a device to make that side work a bit harder they need to think again.

[Tristanjohn]

b

[Chiteng]

Well actually I discovered the attrition of US units while playing as the US.
I am essentially a lazy player and I had enough airfields to suit me.
After the seebees had built the airfields I sent them back to Nomea
where I was assured by Mogami that all units are brought up to strength.
Imagine my dismay when this didnt happen. Indeed the units at Nomea
(ground combat units like the Marines) started to lose strength.
Not alot to be sure, just one or two points. But no longer pristine.
It was then that I examined the support points and noticed that
the SP were inadequaete. Why is that again?
I dont recall seebees dying of atheletes foot.

[mogami]

Hi, OK lets see if I can start over here and see if I can understand the problem.

Replacements: For a unit to get replacements it needs one of two things. To be short 25 percent of full unit size or have at least 10 items from unit missing. It also needs to have the parent unit still on map. If these conditions are met a new unit is placed in schedule and will arrive (Brisbane/Noumea/Truk) This new unit will merge if in same hex. No unit can get more then one replacement unit in 14 days.

Support does not impact attrition. Supply does. Noumea/Brisbane/Truk units should never suffer from attrition. But having a gun break is not attrition (unsupplied items that break will eventually die/be destroyed)

Units that are in range of their HQ are 25 percent more effective then units outside the range of their HQ.

Support and supply both have impact on reducing unit fatigue. Units at Brisbane/Noumea/Truk should reduce fatigue faster then units located anywhere else. (Rockhampton/Townsville/Charter Towers and Cairns are considered maleria free zones so units there should be next in reducing greatest amout of fatigue since supply moves overland automaticaly to these bases. (Note: Cooktown is not a maleria free base and supply does not move there in amounts moved to other bases)

There are three main HQ in UV 8th Area Army for Japanese SOPAC and SWPAC for Allies. I think every Allied Division and every Japanese Division Brigade has it's own HQ. Units gain 25 percent effectiveness from these units. (But only units belonging the the Div or Bde)
Then there are other 'higher' HQ fleets and Army for Japanese, Corps for Allies
These units add to any unit in range in their chain of command. Air HQ impact airgroups. Japanese Fleet HQ impact Japanese ground units that belong to Navy HQ. (It is best to keep units in range of their HQ. Just having a HQ nearby is not enough)

So I'll have to somehow find time to run enough turns to see if units at Noumea are attriting down or just suffering normal breakdowns and repairs. The best way to check if a unit is in trouble is to watch it's fatigue level. If it goes down from one turn to the next it is ok. (I think the lowest a ground unit can be is 5 fatigue) I think just sitting at Lunga makes units increase around 3 per turn up to mid 40's low 50's (modified by supply and HQ support)

On the base menu you see support present and support required. On unit menu you see support the unit has and support the unit needs. Units other then HQ/Base force will always have one number in red. The Base menu may be in red or white if enough support present. Engineer units appear to need more outside support. Without it they are less effective but they do not attrit. (when alone in a base other then Noumea/Truk/Brisbane they suffer breakdowns according to the supply level of their base.)

(You'll notice Japanese engineer units in hex with 4x supply level and the proper HQ build considerably faster then a lone engineer with just 1x or 2x supply required)

Just to be clear, Units do not suffer attrition based on support. Units are more effective when they have full support. Extra effectiveness can come from higher HQ.
Supply is what impacts attrition. A unit below its total support but in range of it's HQ or higher HQ with abundant supply is fine. (It will recover fatigue and fight with improved effectiveness.

Support impacts combat and fatigue. Supply can impact combat/fatigue/attrition

[Admiral DadMan]

...(You'll notice Japanese engineer units in hex with 4x supply level and the proper HQ build considerably faster then a lone engineer with just 1x or 2x supply required)...

Why is it that when I think "I did not know that," I hear Johnny Carson in my mind?

[Veer]

Since i'm not clear on how UV handles reinforcement/replacements yet I shouldn't comment.

But I do consider certain levels of attrition 'normal' regardless of support level. It is the South Pacific afterall and keeping troops stuck for months inactive on a certain base is not going to make them 100% effective.

[Tristanjohn]

Since i'm not clear on how UV handles reinforcement/replacements yet I shouldn't comment.

But I do consider certain levels of attrition 'normal' regardless of support level. It is the South Pacific afterall and keeping troops stuck for months inactive on a certain base is not going to make them 100% effective.

That's sounds like a pretty good explanation to me, Mogami, and thank you. It at least confirms what I've seen with regard to troops stationed on Noumea--these do not seem to ever attrit though well can find themselves low on support. Supply at Noumea, of course, is never (or rarely should be) an issue in my play.

Getting back to my point: the Allies are short on support services and I have to suppose this is a gamey convention on Gary's part to give that player a "better game of it." But then who knows?

Are there more sophisticated mobile supply and support echelons (Servron) for the Allies in WitP? Something more advanced re assets available to Cincpac needs to be modeled if the push through the Central Pacific is to be depicted.

Veer: I agree, there ought to be loads of penalty for trying to exist on some of these islands. In the Solomons it was bad enough; others places, for instance the Santa Cruz group, ought to be declared strictly "out of bounds" entirely as they were just too inhospitable for civilized man.

Air squadrons most especially should be modeled to where it's mandatory to rotate them (their pilots at least) in and out of theater every few weeks for R&R.

Speaking to the air system: this is yet another factor which worked constantly against the Japanese pilots--the day-to-day grind of, the mind-numbing fatigue that results from unrelenting war.

[Chiteng]

With all respect Mogami, The units in Nomea suffered a loss in strength.
It didnt matter to me WHY. I assumed it was lack of support, since that was what was visible.

As always the supply was maxxed. The loss of strength was quite real.
As I said, not alot, but enough to irk.
Mostly to ENG units and Baseforces.

[mjk428]

Why is it that when I think "I did not know that," I hear Johnny Carson in my mind?

That's funny, I hear Dana Carvey impersonating Johnny Carson.

I have to agree with Chiteng that it's silly. I resolved it with the scenario editor by adding support to the HQ units that arrive in Noumea. It may not be a serious issue but it bugged me.