Great Game but...

[*Lava*]

I think my initial enthusiasm about the game has unfortunately faded away.

There are 2 problems which just put me off too much.

1. My fleet is always in Port. I think the efficiency drops for being at sea are a tad too heavy and I believe that using supply oilers should restore some efficiency while the ships are at sea. I understand why the efficiency drops were introduced to stop folks from just sailing across the Pacific and attacking Japan, but the mechanic used to prevent this is way to heavy handed.

And...

2. The US is forced to begin to their offensive against the Solomon Islands. That is the only option available which allows the Japanese to concentrate their defense there. It is not only historically incorrect, but just isn't much fun. The US should also have the ability, as happened during the war, to also push across the Pacific Island. Given the way the game is setup that is, of course, impossible. The only real option is to make Johnston Island an upgradeable port.

Thus, by making Johnston Island an upgradeable port, lowering the efficiency drops a tad and giving a tad of efficiency by using oilers, the US can have a viable Pacific offensive which mirrors at least, operationally the actual war.

Without these changes, the game gets relegated to my games library in Steam.

[*Lava*]

Please don't get me wrong.

It is a fun game, but replay ability just isn't there for lack of operational options for the US.

[AlvaroSousa]

So let's address each of these.

#1 The Japanese should be crushed, period. There is no way in any game that a good Axis and good Allied player for where the Japanese overrun the map. Simply impossible due to their lack of resources. Thus the time constraint needs to be on the Allies. It is much easier for the Axis to take strategic locations for their victory points. Going beyond that becomes more difficult. But the Allies need the time pressure since the game is based on victory points not simple holding X, Y, Z objective. The port efficiency system rewards taking more ports. That pushes the supply system forward simulating how it was in teh war. To push the top route you can take the Marshals and 111,58 which isn't hard. Build it up. Next 87,58 which is another up-gradable port. While you don't need a 2 prong approach it does force the Axis to split their resources. As the Allies you should be building ships early and often timing them to come out in 1944/45

#2 From Hawaii you can take Marshalls, from Marshalls you can take Marianas splitting the Axis forces. Late 43 the Allies can't be stopped only delayed. You have the upgradable bases along the way. I played enough games where my opponent did just that.

[ncc1701e]

Regarding #1, I still think the penalty should be variable to reflect logistics improvement over the years.

I have already made this proposal here:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 0#p4981380

[ncc1701e]

And regarding #2, I did not find the solution against Yuejin. But I am improving in defense. It is the attack that is still problematic. Or it is me that is too careful.
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 6&t=384906

In this thread, Tarawa was also perhaps a solution:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 1#p4982291

[*Lava*]

From what I understand, the upgradeable major ports and the efficiency hits for being out at sea were to stop folks from sailing from the US and attacking Japan directly.

The 2 tweaks that I have recommended will still prevent the above from happening. Yes, it will mean the Japanese will face a 2 pronged attack from the sea, but in a best case scenario, that isn't going to happen until mid 1943. The Japanese must choose between going full tilt in the land war (as they did historically) or developing a more balanced naval strategy.

In either case, I believe it results in a better PvE and PvP experience.

[AlvaroSousa]

The Allies should not be able to mount an offensive until late 1943. They simple don't have the ships.

The oilers restoring effectiveness is a huge Allied advantage. They are the only ones capable of buying so many that it doesn't impact their production. If you read up on Naval combat fleets had limited supply. In one engagement they could expend all their ammunition and have to return home. Or say if they were going to bombard Port Moresby. Those are different shells than the ones engaging in naval combat. I will put thought into it and run some math if it viable though. It could also be an early snowball exploit for the Axis.

Making Johnson Island upgrade able is asking for trouble. Now you really open the door for an early Axis invasion on PH and the West Coast which was impossible for the Japanese. In WPP it is just very difficult to do. If anything I would adjust the effectiveness loss.

Ask Hadros how he does it. He did the two prong attack really well. Better than I did. We played a few games of WPP as I always do with him. He is quite good at it.

[ncc1701e]

Ask Hadros how he does it. He did the two prong attack really well. Better than I did. We played a few games of WPP as I always do with him. He is quite good at it.

Hadros, how do you do?

[ncc1701e]

The oilers restoring effectiveness is a huge Allied advantage. They are the only ones capable of buying so many that it doesn't impact their production. If you read up on Naval combat fleets had limited supply. In one engagement they could expend all their ammunition and have to return home. Or say if they were going to bombard Port Moresby. Those are different shells than the ones engaging in naval combat. I will put thought into it and run some math if it viable though. It could also be an early snowball exploit for the Axis.

Making Johnson Island upgrade able is asking for trouble. Now you really open the door for an early Axis invasion on PH and the West Coast which was impossible for the Japanese. In WPP it is just very difficult to do. If anything I would adjust the effectiveness loss.

Yes, I was thinking the same for Johnson Island. Tarawa is much better to Allies/Axis balance.

But, on the other hand, I agree with Lava when he says sea effectiveness is degraded very quickly. Improving it thanks to advancement level is I think a good solution to this. It will limit the sea effectiveness of UK carriers while US carriers will be stronger starting 1944.

[stjeand]

Perhaps a minor change to the effectiveness loss.

Start of every turn ships not in port lose 8 effectiveness.
Each op point used for movement uses 4 effectiveness.
Attacks still lose 8.


I was thinking about the supply oilers and thought it would be a huge allied advantage but would need to be heavily tempered because I am not sure Japan could ever have many...I think they could create a few but...to what overall affect?

Lets say when you build a supply oilier you get 10 supply ships.
They restore merely 4% when used.
CVs require 6 ships.
BB require 4
CA / CL require 3
DD require 2

They must be used before movement...are subject to air attack, and the ships they are supplying are subject too...and it should be a bigger risk...air shows up while they are connected to supply ships? BAD

In the end you are always still losing efficiency if you stay out to sea.


For me the bigger issue has always been ship repairs..FAR to fast.




Just some thoughts...

I am honestly not upset yet at the efficiency loss...
The Allies have SO many ships the Axis will get worn down much faster.

Perhaps some different tactics?
With all the night moves the Allies can really create issues in the Solomons...though if you lose Noumea then not sure what you can do. Have to find a way to HOLD that at all costs.

[*Lava*]

If you read up on Naval combat fleets had limited supply.

The US fleet in the Pacific, once the war well and truly got underway, only returned to port for repairs. The CVs were constantly at sea. The US Navy had a huge logistical tail consisting of oilers and ammunition ships.

I think if I was to do the supply system for the game, I would have replenishment zones around major fleet bases in which the Navy could operate without loss to efficiency. This is how the real world works.

I was stationed in the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf twice during times of tension on an aircraft carrier and each time we were there for over 100 days. That is why forward bases are crucial, as they provide a supply line to the fleet. Look at US CV ops during the Vietnam War. I believe the CVs did 3 month stints on Gonzo station, supplied from Cubi Point in the Philippines. They were flying combat ops daily and being resupplied at sea. Naval logistics isn't really so different from land logistics. You have a range from supply bases in which you can operate continuously, but once you exceed that range, efficiency and combat capability drops dramatically.

Once you push out of that replenishment zone, then you are limited to the time you can stay on station because your logistical ships just can't go back and forth to keep the CV and their escorts topped off.

[stjeand]

I think that the current game platform has some limits...
But I can't say for 100%...


I would like to see less loss the closer you are to one of your ports.

The US could operate at sea continuously because at that point they owned the sea. Japan had nothing left to try to attack them.

If replenishment zones existed...something would have to be done around repair.
Fixing a fleet CV should be impossible unless they go home. Even Pearl did not repair them...they always went to the West Coast for repairs and refits.

In this game you can refit in any port...even a size 1.
You are repair in any size 5 port or above...which could in no way handle the large ships.

Some concessions have to be made somewhere.

Okay efficiency does not go down...but now it takes 6 months to repair a CV that took 1 hit...
And months to go upgrade.

Is that better or worse?

Not sure.

[ncc1701e]

Once again the simple fix for me is what I have proposed here:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 0#p4981380

A reduction of sea effectiveness lost at sea based on advancement level. The UI is perfectly ready to support this.

Tarawa can be attacked by three corps so it can be taken except if Japanese player put three land units on top of it.
The fact that it is a size level 2 port means that you can't load it with plenty of stuff.

---

0003.JPG (51.94 KiB) Viewed 1225 times

[*Lava*]

I have no problems with repairs and upgrades in port. That does without mention.

[stjeand]

That in lies the problem.

If ships did not lose efficiency they would just sail forever.

Either you make efficiency slow that up or you have to change repairs.

You can't site that historically that the US navy sailed indefinitely without going to port yet allow repairs to occur in places that they could not faster than they could.

Keep in mind that is a HUGE Allied advantage. A CVs and BBs can repair outside of the West Coast...

IF a change is made to efficiency then a change needs to be made to repairs / upgrades to counter.
Yes repairs are less often but still...

Most if not all CV repairs had to be carried out at the owners home country...UK (England), Japan(Homeland) and US(West Coast)



I am find with reducing the efficiency lose but not leaving repair / upgrade the way it is.

[*Lava*]

If ships did not lose efficiency they would just sail forever.

Ya'll obvious don't understand how Navies work.

Navies gain efficiency and experience by being at sea. They lose efficiency and experience by being in port.

That is why parking you fleet in port for the majority of the war makes absolutely no sense.

[ncc1701e]

If ships did not lose efficiency they would just sail forever.

My US subs can sail forever with supply oilers. Supermen.

[stjeand]

First I am not trying to be difficult...nor argue...
I definitely see your side of things..
And please do not stop posting...this does help other see possible changes.

Efficiency is more than just that...it entails a large list of things that the game engine just does not handle.
Fuel, ship wear and tear, crew exhaustion and injuries, supplies, minor damage from attacks and weather...

Honestly I don't know how a ship works...
I have read a bunch on WW2 ships...And that is all I have to go on.
I am just an armchair historian.

I agree that once you have air and sea superiority in an area you should lose less and less efficiency.
I agree that perhaps there could be something you advance to make this lower, like Amphibious Invasion.
I agree that the numbers could and should be lowered...16 per turn is pretty high.
Maybe even make higher experienced crews lose less efficiency.

But I am sorry if you are going to change efficiency then you have to change repairs to match...It only makes sense.

Everything I read about IJN CVs being repaired...they went back to Japan for repair and were gone for months sometimes years....After the Coral Sea the 2 remaining Japanese CVs returned to port in Japan for 6 months of repairs, refits and training of new pilots.

Same for US BBs and CVs...once damaged gone for a LONG time. USS Saratoga hit by a mine on January 11, and did not return until June...nearly 6 months for repair and refit. I believe Pearl did have a dry dock but they could not repair 25 ships at one time...there was only so much space.

And the UK sent the BB and CV back to England...instead in 1 month they are back all shiny.

As for subs they are broken.
They should not stay 100% efficiency...they run out of torpedoes and fuel and you know what you can do? Sail supplies to them in the middle of the South China sea in the middle of a war when there are no US ports for 200 miles and the only way to find them would be to radio in enemy territory that you are here.
They should lose efficiency every turn they are attacking merchant ships...should be the same as attacking surface ships.

[*Lava*]

But I am sorry if you are going to change efficiency then you have to change repairs to match...It only makes sense.

I totally agree with that.

Damaged warships, should have to return to a home port for repairs. And those repairs should take quite awhile to complete, depending on the size of the ship.

Also, understand the recommendations I am making about efficiency losses. I'm not advocating for huge changes.

A fleet that is at sea at the end of a turn will take, what... a 16 percent hit in efficiency? That's a lot. When I say allow oilers to replenish efficiency, it it like a truck replenishing a ground unit. At best you get 4 percent. So the fleet will still take a big hit in efficiency. If that same fleet tried to sail from the US to Japan, it would incur such a huge loss in efficiency that even using an oiler every turn would not make any difference.

I would also say that a fleet operating at sea within 4 to 6 hexes from a major naval base, should receive no hit to efficiency, as being at sea is actually how the fleet increases its expertise and experience. During the Napoleonic wars, the British fleet was constantly at sea, and when it encountered the Franco-Spanish fleet (which spent long periods in port) at Trafalgar, the British easily carried the day with a decisive Victory.

[stjeand]

Honestly I would like to see something like the following:

IF you are outside of port you lose 6% at the start of your next turn. (OR could be a weather based amount, clear 4%, rain 6%, heavy rain 8%, snow 8%)
Each use of a operation port takes 3%

So moving 24, 3%
Moving 48 6%.
You supply land troops you lose 3%
You attack you lose 8% or more if you take damage...I think it works like that...if I remember.

So if you are just sailing you could lose 14% which could be alot...though you could temper that.

Use supply oiler would recover 4% which I am okay with for the Allies...later in the war they might have tons and that is fine. Japan would not be able to do this.
I posted earlier how they could work.


Repairs...

CVs have to go to a Home Port...England, Japan or US coastland.
BBs can repair 1 in a level 9 port...or any number in the above ports. Only 1 dry dock...outside of your home country.
CA/CL can repair in level 7, 8 , 9 port.
DD and sub can repair in 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 port.

Each point should take some amount of time...say 2 turns...or 4...
And "upgrade" should take 2 turns or 4 but could be done at the same time as a repair.